Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    People v. Rullepa - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    shezeharadeyahoocom
    Rullepa was charged with raping AAA, who was alleged to be 3 years old at the time. The trial court relied on testimony from AAA and her mother about AAA's age and imposed the death penalty on Rullepa. However, the Supreme Court ruled that AAA's age was not established with moral certainty to be below 7 years old. No authentic documents proving AAA's age were presented. A 3 1/2 year old could appear similar to an underdeveloped 7 year old. Therefore, the death penalty could not be imposed, and Rullepa could only be sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People v. Rullepa - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    shezeharadeyahoocom
    2K views1 page
    Rullepa was charged with raping AAA, who was alleged to be 3 years old at the time. The trial court relied on testimony from AAA and her mother about AAA's age and imposed the death penalty on Rullepa. However, the Supreme Court ruled that AAA's age was not established with moral certainty to be below 7 years old. No authentic documents proving AAA's age were presented. A 3 1/2 year old could appear similar to an underdeveloped 7 year old. Therefore, the death penalty could not be imposed, and Rullepa could only be sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

    Original Description:

    Evidence Case Digest

    Original Title

    4. People v. Rullepa_Case Digest (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rullepa was charged with raping AAA, who was alleged to be 3 years old at the time. The trial court relied on testimony from AAA and her mother about AAA's age and imposed the death penalty on Rullepa. However, the Supreme Court ruled that AAA's age was not established with moral certainty to be below 7 years old. No authentic documents proving AAA's age were presented. A 3 1/2 year old could appear similar to an underdeveloped 7 year old. Therefore, the death penalty could not be imposed, and Rullepa could only be sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views1 page

    People v. Rullepa - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    shezeharadeyahoocom
    Rullepa was charged with raping AAA, who was alleged to be 3 years old at the time. The trial court relied on testimony from AAA and her mother about AAA's age and imposed the death penalty on Rullepa. However, the Supreme Court ruled that AAA's age was not established with moral certainty to be below 7 years old. No authentic documents proving AAA's age were presented. A 3 1/2 year old could appear similar to an underdeveloped 7 year old. Therefore, the death penalty could not be imposed, and Rullepa could only be sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    4. [G.R. No. 131516.

    March 5, 2003]
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RONNIE RULLEPA y
    GUINTO, accused-appellant.

    Facts:
    Rullepa, a houseboy, was charged with Rape for allegedly having carnal
    knowledge with AAA, three (3) years of age. The victim and her mother testified that
    AAA was only 3 years old at the time of the rape, however, no certificate of live birth or
    similar authentic documents were presented in evidence to support the statements.

    RTC imposed the supreme penalty of death upon Rullepa relying on the
    testimonies of AAA and her mother that AAA was three (3) years old when the crime
    was committed, hence, qualifying the penalty.

    Issue: WON the age of AAA was established with certainty that she was below 7 years
    old.

    Ruling:

    No, the age of AAA was not established with moral certainty that she was below
    7 years old. A person’s appearance, where relevant, is admissible as object evidence,
    the same being addressed to the senses of the court.
    But the weight to accord such appearance depends on the disparity between
    the alleged age and that sought to be proved.
    In the case, a mature 3 ½ could be mistaken for underdeveloped 7 years old.

    As it has not been established with moral certainty that Cyra May was below
    seven years old at the time of the commission of the offense, accused-appellant cannot
    be sentenced to suffer the death penalty. Only the penalty of reclusion perpetua can
    be imposed upon him.

    You might also like