100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 35 - 37 out of 68 pages.
be convicted of qualified rape. Otherwise, he would bedeprived of his constitutional right to be properlyinformed of the nature and cause of the accusationagainst him since the information merely charges himwith simple rape. People vs Caliso GR 131475On appeal is the decision of the Regional TrialCourt convicting appellant Benigno V. Villanuevaof rape and sentencing him to reclusionperpetua. Whether the failure of OSG to allegedintheirinformationtheaggravatingcircumstances would bar imposition of deathpenalty against the petitioner. Decide.Answer: Yes, In this case, the information for rape showsthat none of the aggravating circumstances mentionedby the OSG was expressly alleged. A court is precludedfrom considering the attendance of qualifying oraggravating circumstances if they are not alleged in thecomplaint or information. Thus, we find that the trial courtdid not err in sentencing appellant to the lesser penaltyof reclusion perpetua. People vs BuadaAccused-appellant was charged with two countsof rape in two separate Informations by hisdaughters, Accordingly, accused was sentencedto suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua inCriminal Case 1 and death sentence in CriminalCase 2 and to indemnify the two victims. Wasthe trial court is correct when they imposed thedeath penalty?Answer: Yes, the information filed failed to indicate therelationship and minority, It is fundamental that everyelement of an offense must be alleged in the complaintor information. The purpose of the rule is to enable theaccused to suitably prepare his defense. He is presumedto have no independent knowledge of the facts thatconstitute the offense. The conviction of an accused of acrime in its qualified form, where the information failed tospecify the circumstance that qualified the crime, is adenial of his right to be informed of the nature of theaccusation against him and, consequently, a denial ofdue process. As stated above, the information in thiscase only alleged the offenders relationship to the victimbut failed to mention the victims minority. Consequently,accused-appellant can only be held liable for simplerape, for which the penalty prescribed is reclusionperpetua. People vs AlemaniaThe above-named accused, with lewd designand thru force and intimidation and with intent tosatisfy his lust, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously insert his penis intothe mouth of his daughter who was 6 years old,against her will and consent. Was the Trial courtwrong in its decision to imposed death?Answer: Yes, It would be a denial of appellantsconstitutional right to be informed of the charges againsthim and, consequently, a denial of due process if he ischarged with rape under paragraph 2 of Article 266-Aand be convicted of the qualified form under paragraph 1which is punishable with death although the same wasnot alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned.