This case has been cited 19 times or more.
|
2011-04-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In Criminal Case No. 5522-0, the alleged crime was committed in June 1996, or before the effectivity of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 8353, otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997." Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. 7659, which is applicable in this case, whenever a crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. [35] In the case at bar, the use of a deadly weapon, although alleged in the Complaint and proved at the trial, was not alleged in the Information as required by Section 8 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the use of a deadly weapon by accused-appellant cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance without violating his right to be informed of the charges against him. [36] Consequently, accused-appellant may only be held liable for simple rape. The penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the proper penalty to be imposed, the accused avers that he cannot be sentenced to suffer the death penalty since the qualifying circumstance of minority, that AAA was 12 years and 10 months old in June 1997, was not duly alleged in the Information, in the light of the rulings in People v. Bartolome,[34] People v. Cula,[35] and People v. Liban.[36] His reliance on these cases is misplaced. These cases reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua because the qualifying circumstance of minority was not duly alleged and proven. However, nowhere in the cited decisions does it declare that the exact age, including the number of months must be recited in the Information, otherwise, an accused may not be convicted of qualified rape. More importantly, the facts obtaining in these cases show that although the qualifying circumstances were not duly alleged and established during trial, such inconsistencies did not create reasonable doubt as would reverse a conviction of rape. | |||||
|
2003-07-22 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| "A Because I was afraid, your Honor.[4] The defense would claim that Felisa made no physical resistance but gave herself up to appellant's advances. Physical resistance in establishing rape, however, would be inconsequential when intimidation was clearly exercised upon the victim, submitting herself to the rapist's lust, not because she willed it, but because of fear for her life and safety.[5] Felisa testified that appellant had used a gun to cow her into submission; indeed, she remained handcuffed until the next day. | |||||
|
2001-11-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The Court, however, does not agree with the penalty imposed by the court a quo upon the appellant. In People v. Brigildo,[13] People v. Tipay,[14] People v. Cula,[15] People v. Licanda,[16] People v. Tabanggay,[17] and People v. Canonigo,[18] the Court had the occasion to discuss the need to prove beyond reasonable doubt the age of the victim in prosecutions for incestuous rape. | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Appellant also contends that Wilma said she had struggled against her ravisher atop the bamboo bed (papag). If this was so, he argues, his wife close by should have been awakened by the noise of the bed. That the latter did not wake up casts suspicion on Wilma's narration. On this matter, we have repeatedly held that rape can be committed in the same room where other members of the family are sleeping, and it is neither impossible nor incredible for the family members to be in deep slumber and not be awakened while the sexual assault is being committed.[23] Moreover, appellant's claim that his wife was not awakened that night of the rape in 1994 is not accurate. In fact, she was awakened and asked what was happening late as it was.[24] In our view, it was the mother's fear of scandal and shame mentioned earlier that inhibited her responses. | |||||
|
2001-05-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| This ruling was reiterated in People vs. Cula,[37] to wit: At all events, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove with certainty the fact that the victim was below 18 when the rape was committed in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty. The record of the case is bereft of any independent evidence, such as the victim's duly certified Certificate of Live Birth, accurately showing private complainant's age. The fact that accused-appellant Manuel has not denied the allegation in the complaint that Maricel was 16 years old when the crime was committed cannot make up for the failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden in this regard. | |||||
|
2001-03-20 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| However, no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove Sharon's age at the time she was raped other than her statement in court while describing her personal circumstances, that she was seventeen (17) years old at the time she testified on June 3, 1999. Such casual testimony of the victim as to her age is not sufficient. To justify the imposition of death, proof of the victim's age is indubitable. There must be sufficient and clear evidence proving her age, even if not denied by the accused.[22] A duly certified certificate of his birth accurately showing the complainant's age or some other authentic documents such as a baptismal certificate or a school record, has been recognized as competent evidence[23] | |||||
|
2001-03-16 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| In People v. Cula,[43] the victim was alleged to be 16 years old. The Court did not impose the death penalty since the prosecution failed to discharge its burden to prove with certainty the fact of the age of the victim when the rape was committed. The record of the case is bereft of any independent evidence, such as the victim's duly certified Certificate of Live Birth, accurately showing the victim's age. The fact that accused did not rebut the allegation in the complaint that the victim was 16 years old when the crime was committed cannot make up for the failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden in this regard. | |||||
|
2001-03-12 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| Thus, we are faced with the uncertainty regarding private complainant's exact age, not only because of the prosecution failed to present her birth certificate or other equally acceptable official document concerning her date of birth. In the case of People vs. Cula,[36] the qualifying circumstance of minority was not appreciated by the Court because there was no evidence at all to prove the victim's age. While the complainant alleged that the victim was 16 years old when the crime was committed, which was not denied by the accused, there was no independent evidence at all to prove the victim's age such as the victim's certificate of live birth. The Court noted that the trial court failed to make a categorical finding regarding the minority of the victim. | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| However, it is significant to note that the prosecution failed to present the birth certificate of the complainant. Although the victim's age was not contested by the defense, proof of the age of the victim is particularly necessary in this case considering that the victim's age was then 16 years old which is just 2 years below the majority age of 18. In this day of modernism there is hardly a difference between a 16 year old girl and an 18 year old one insofar as physical features and attributes are concerned. A physically developed 16 year old lass may be mistaken for an 18 year old young woman in the same manner that a frail looking 18 year old lady may pass as a 16 year old minor. Thus, it is in this context that independent proof of the actual age of the rape victim becomes vital and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the victim is indeed under 18 years of age as to fall under the qualifying circumstances enumerated in R.A. 7659. In People v. Cula[59] we also ruled - | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A reading of complainant's testimony in its entirety shows that she repeatedly stated what accused-appellant had done to her. Only if such testimony is read in parts and the portions thereof are isolated or taken out of context and no allowance is made for complainant's mental condition can accused-appellant's reading of it be justified.[32] Inconsistencies or lapses in her testimonies do not affect the substance of her statements. They do not damage the essential integrity of the evidence in its material whole nor reflect adversely on complainant's credibility.[33] | |||||
|
2000-12-14 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| To justify the imposition of death, however, proof of the victim's age must be indubitable. There must be sufficient and clear evidence proving her age, even if not denied by the accused.[37] | |||||
|
2000-11-22 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| People vs. Cula[17]reiterated Javier when this Court lowered the penalty in a case of rape committed on a 16-year old victim on the ground that the prosecution did not present any independent proof of age, such as a birth certificate, and for the failure by the trial court to make a categorical finding on the matter. Cula stressed that it was the burden of the prosecution to prove, with certainty, the fact that the victim was below eighteen years at the time of commission of the rape to justify the imposition of the death penalty, and that the failure of the accused-appellant to there present testimony or proof to the contrary did not exonerate the prosecution from its burden. | |||||
|
2000-10-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| At all events, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove with certainty the fact that the victim was below 18 when the rape was committed in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty. The record of the case is bereft of any independent evidence, such as the victim's duly certified Certificate of Live Birth, accurately showing private complainant's age. The fact that accused-appellant Manuel has not denied the allegation in the complaint that Maricel was 16 years old when the crime was committed cannot make up for the failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden in this regard. Because of this lapse, as well as the corresponding failure of the trial court to make a categorical finding as to the minority of the victim, we hold that the qualifying circumstance of minority under Republic Act No. 7659 cannot be appreciated in this case, and accordingly the death penalty cannot be imposed.[59] | |||||
|
2000-09-15 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| "COURT: So, the lacerations that you found could have been inflicted on some other time, date? A: Yes, your honor. Q: When you examined the victim, the victim was no longer a virgin as she had lacerations on the hymen? A: Yes, your honor. Q: Was there a sign of reddening or discoloration of the labia minora of the private organ? A: Labia Minora is congested and so is the fourchette portion. Q: In layman's language what do you mean? A: There is reddening of the labia minora and the abrasion which means that the superficial ephethelial layer of the skin is removed. Q: There was then discoloration? A: Yes, your honor. Q: What might have caused the discoloration or abrasion? A: The friction brought about by rubbing of a hard blunt object."[7] Although Dr. Freyra testified that the lacerations found on Ella's private part were healed lacerations, which means that they were inflicted more than seven days prior to the examination conducted, this finding does not negate the commission of rape on August 26, 1997. As correctly pointed out by the trial court hymenal lacerations which are usually inflicted when there is complete penetration are not essential in establishing the crime of rape as it is enough that a slight penetration or entry of the penis into the lips of the vagina takes place. The conclusion is in line with jurisprudence to the effect that complete penetration of the penis is not essential to consummate rape; what is material is that there is the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum, no matter how slight.[8] | |||||
|
2000-08-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| this situation, the prosecution's proof of minority age of the victim must be given the strictest scrutiny. We examined the record of the case and found that there was no "independent" evidence that would prove the victim's minority age. The victim's age was merely alleged in the Information. Again, we did not impose the death penalty. In People vs. Cula,[26] the Court again did not appreciate the qualifying circumstance of minority. We held that there was absolutely no evidence at all on record to prove the victim's age. We even noted that the trial court failed to make a categorical | |||||
|
2000-06-29 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| However, jurisprudence dictates that when the law specifies certain circumstances that will qualify an offense and thus attach to it a greater degree of penalty, such circumstances must be both alleged and proven in order to justify the imposition of the graver penalty. Recent rulings of the Court relative to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to justify the imposition of death, 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.[40] A duly certified certificate of live birth accurately showing the complainant's age, or some other official document or record such as a school record, has been recognized as competent evidence.[41] | |||||
|
2000-06-08 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| As regards the allegation that the mother's reaction is contrary to human experience, considering the factual milieu of the case at bar, there is nothing out of the ordinary in the mother's silence and indifference that night. It is an established fact that complainant's mother cowed in fear and was powerless in the presence of accused Arteche, who used to beat her up. Arnie confirmed that accused Arteche is "very brave when" it comes to their family.[20] "The workings of a human mind placed under emotional stress are unpredictable and people react differently--some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility while others may openly welcome the intrusion."[21] | |||||
|
2000-06-08 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We affirm the award of moral damages in the amount of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos. Consistent with present case law which treats the imposition of civil indemnity as mandatory upon a finding of rape, accused-appellant is ordered to pay the additional amount of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos as civil indemnity ex delicto.[33] | |||||