PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUDY NUYOK
G.R. No. 195424 June 15, 2015
Facts:
The victim was 13 years old when the accused committed the rapes in June, July, August and September of 2005. She resided in the house of her grandmother wherein the accused, her
paternal uncle, also lived. On June 25, 2005, as the victim was about to sleep, the accused laid down beside her. She tried to escape, but he pulled her by the hair, slapped her, and punched her in the stomach, rendering her unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, she noticed that her panties had blood. The accused warned her not to reveal the incident to anyone, threatening to kill her and her family if she did so. The victim finally reported the four rapes to her mother in October 2005. The accused denied having raped and imputed ill motives to the victim insisting that the victim’s mother had wanted to get back at him after he had told his brother, the victim’s father, that he had caught the victim’s mother with a paramour. Both the RTC and CA found the accused guilty of four counts of rape.
Issue:
Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in appreciating the minority of the offended party when the same was not indicated in the information.
Ruling:
No, the court a quo did not gravely err in appreciating the minority of the offended party.
The Revised Penal Code provides that Rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
(a) through force, threat, or intimidation;
(b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
(c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
(d) When the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances above be present.
The failure to specify the exact date or time when the rapes were committed did not ipso facto render the information defective. Neither the date nor the time of the commission of rape is a material ingredient of the crime, for the essence of the crime is carnal knowledge of a female against her will through force or intimidation. Consequently, the date or the time of the commission of the rape need not be stated in the complaint or information with absolute accuracy, for it is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the crime was committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission. Secondly, the Prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt the charges of rape against the accused. The victim positively identified the accused as her rapist. Her account of his crimes was candid, and her demeanor revealing. She could not control herself but cried in the course of her testimony whenever she was made to recall her traumatic experiences at his hands. The testimony of a rape victim that is consistent with the medical findings constitutes sufficient basis to conclude that carnal knowledge occurred.
Hence, the court a quo did not gravely err in appreciating the minority of the offended party.
(SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines)
G.R. No. 195424 June 15, 2015
Facts:
The victim was 13 years old when the accused committed the rapes in June, July, August and September of 2005. She resided in the house of her grandmother wherein the accused, her
paternal uncle, also lived. On June 25, 2005, as the victim was about to sleep, the accused laid down beside her. She tried to escape, but he pulled her by the hair, slapped her, and punched her in the stomach, rendering her unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, she noticed that her panties had blood. The accused warned her not to reveal the incident to anyone, threatening to kill her and her family if she did so. The victim finally reported the four rapes to her mother in October 2005. The accused denied having raped and imputed ill motives to the victim insisting that the victim’s mother had wanted to get back at him after he had told his brother, the victim’s father, that he had caught the victim’s mother with a paramour. Both the RTC and CA found the accused guilty of four counts of rape.
Issue:
Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in appreciating the minority of the offended party when the same was not indicated in the information.
Ruling:
No, the court a quo did not gravely err in appreciating the minority of the offended party.
The Revised Penal Code provides that Rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
(a) through force, threat, or intimidation;
(b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
(c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
(d) When the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances above be present.
The failure to specify the exact date or time when the rapes were committed did not ipso facto render the information defective. Neither the date nor the time of the commission of rape is a material ingredient of the crime, for the essence of the crime is carnal knowledge of a female against her will through force or intimidation. Consequently, the date or the time of the commission of the rape need not be stated in the complaint or information with absolute accuracy, for it is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the crime was committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission. Secondly, the Prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt the charges of rape against the accused. The victim positively identified the accused as her rapist. Her account of his crimes was candid, and her demeanor revealing. She could not control herself but cried in the course of her testimony whenever she was made to recall her traumatic experiences at his hands. The testimony of a rape victim that is consistent with the medical findings constitutes sufficient basis to conclude that carnal knowledge occurred.
Hence, the court a quo did not gravely err in appreciating the minority of the offended party.
(SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment