victim—the age of the victim is an essential element. Notwithstanding, appellant may still be convicted of rape. People vs. Rosare. Evangelista was found guilty of murder and illegal possession of firearm. The accused posit that the trial court gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of murder and illegal possession of firearm charged in two separate informations. The information charged accused-appellant with simple illegal possession of firearm but the trial court found him guilty of illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated form under P.D. No. 1866, after finding that accused-appellant had used an unlicensed firearm in killing. Did the trial court err? Answer: Yes, in so far as convicting the accused for use of unlicensed firearm only. The use of an unlicensed
firearm in the commission of murder is a qualifying circumstance and must be specifically alleged in the information, otherwise the accused cannot be sentenced to death for illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated form. Consequently, it must be specifically alleged in the information, otherwise the accused cannot be sentenced to death for illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated form without violating his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. People vs. Evangelista. Accused Cruz appeals the judgment of the lower court finding him guilty of rape. Because, according to his counsel, it appears from the records that the accused did not succeed with having sexual intercourse with the victim on April 25, 1991. And later on, the victim testified saying that she was referring to incidents that took place prior to April 25, 1991 and that the rape which occurred on April 25 was not consummated. Was the conviction of the accused correct? Answer: No. Due process demands that the accused in a criminal case should be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial —an accused cannot be convicted of rape where the evidence shows that the rape was committed on some other date different from the date indicated in the information.—It is clear from Mary Jane’s testimony that accused-appellant succeeded in raping her in the past, but not on April 25, 1991. Accused-appellant cannot be convicted for consummated rape on the basis of such evidence as the complaint specifically refers to the offense committed on April 25, 1991. To convict him for an offense not alleged in the complaint or information will violate such right. People vs. Cruz. An information was filed against Gener de Guzman for rape, he was found guilty. During re-direct examination, the victim testified that she was raped 3 times which was inconsistent with her previous statement saying that the act was only done once which is what was reflected in the information filed before the court. Can the accused validly be held liable for 3 acts of rape?
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 68 pages?
- Fall '16
- Ulysses, Appellate court, Legal burden of proof, Trial court, Rights of the accused