As it affirmed with modification a conviction towards a person for raping a minor, the Supreme Court burdened that the knowledge charging an accused-appellant of certified rape should be exact.
In a 24-page resolution promulgated on July 25, the First Division partially granted the attraction of the appellant and affirmed with modification the ruling of the Court of Appeals that discovered the appellant responsible of certified rape.
Instead, the Supreme Court stated appellant is just liable for easy rape.
“The Court finds accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape… and he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,” the Supreme Court stated.
Meanwhile, the Court ordered the appellant to pay the complainant P75,000 as civil indemnity; P75,000 as ethical damages; and P75,000 as exemplary damages, with an rate of interest of 6% each year from the finality of the choice.
The appellant was initially ordered to pay P100,000 as civil indemnity, P100,000 as ethical damages, and P100,000 as exemplary damages.
The case stemmed from the knowledge filed by then-16-year-old sufferer, charging the appellant of certified rape in 2015. The info acknowledged that the victims was his “first cousin or relative within the third civil degree.”
In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated the prosecution failed to ascertain that the rape was certified.
According to the Court, Art. 266-B(1) qualifies rape when it’s dedicated by a relative by consanguinity or affinity throughout the third civil diploma of a sufferer beneath 18 years previous.
However, within the info towards the appellant , the Court famous the utilization of the phrase “or” when the sufferer was described as his “first cousin or relative within the third civil degree.”
“The use of the word ‘or’ in the information allowed the prosecution an opportunity to indict accused-appellant in the alternative, either as a first cousin or a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity,” it stated.
The Court stated this isn’t permitted because it didn’t sufficiently inform the appellant of his exact legal responsibility.
“The information should be precise as to the relationship between the offender and the victim, such that the averment cannot be stated in the alternative. More so in this case where being a first cousin will not elevate the crime to qualified rape which merits a heavier penalty,” it stated.—LDF, GMA Integrated News
Source: www.gmanetwork.com
