100%(3)3 out of 3 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 50 - 51 out of 68 pages.
allege these circumstances, accused-appellant cannotbe convicted of qualified rape because he was notproperlyinformedofthechargesagainsthim. Consequently, accused-appellant can only beconvicted of three (3) counts of simple rape andaccordingly punished with reclusion perpetua. Peoplevs. BaltazarMarilyn Perez, twelve years (12) old, wokeup from her deep slumber between 10 p.m.and 11 p.m. of 25 December 1997, in theirresidence in barangay Sagrada Familia,Hagonoy, Bulacan, to find her allegedstepfather Julio Francisco sucking herbreasts and inserting his male organ into herprivate parts. The bizarre situation assumedcontemptible proportions by reason of theperverted intrepidity in which the dastardlydeed was undertaken. Marilyn claimed thatafter the sexual transgression, Franciscothreatened her with a kitchen knife so as notto divulge the incident to anybody lest he killher. But MARILYN seemed to have gatheredcourage for she was able to tap her sleepingmother who woke up to find her husbandatop her daughter. She heard her motherblurt out “Hoy, bakit mo ginalaw ang akinganak? Anak mo na rin iyan!” Theyproceeded to the barangay hall to lodge acomplaint. Francisco was later on brought tothe police station where he wasincarcerated. Francisco was convicted withcrime of rape, penalized under theprovisions of Art. 335 of the Revised PenalCode, as amended by R. A. 8353 otherwiseknown as The Anti-Rape Law of 1997. Didthe court err in imposing death penalty?Answer: Notwithstanding the unequivocal proof at thetrial of this case and in People v. Dimapilis, of the specialcircumstance that accused-appellants were thecommon-law spouses of the victim’s mothers, saidrelationship could not be considered as such because itwas not specifically alleged in the information. Specialqualifying circumstances indicated in the amendatoryprovisions of Section 11 of R.A. 7659 must bespecifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in theinformation; otherwise the death penalty cannot beimposed. To impose the death penalty on the basis ofrelationship, which has not been alleged in theinformation, would violate FRANCISCOs constitutionaland statutory right to be informed of the nature and thecause of the accusation against him. With this favorableserendipity, Francisco can only be convicted of simplerape where the proper imposable penalty is reclusionperpetua under the second paragraph of Article 335,now Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, in view ofthe amendments of R.A. 8353 and R.A. 7659. Peoplevs. FranciscoThe appellant, Mariano Sarmiento, wasconvicted and sentencing him to suffer thepenalty of death, for the rape of a nine-year-old girl, Jocelyn Soquio, allegedlycommitted. According to the prosecution,sometime in September 1996, when Jocelynwas already nine years old, while Alicia andher children were out at work, appellant tiedJocelyns legs separately to the wall whileher hands were tied to a piece of wood andgagged her with a handkerchief to preventher from shouting. While she was tied and