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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 173 views

    PEOPLE v. DELFIN

    Uploaded by

    Djenral Wesley Soriano
    The appellant, Delfin Dela Cruz, was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of raping his 16-year-old daughter and was sentenced to death. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that while the evidence proved the appellant raped his daughter, the RTC erred in imposing the death penalty. The information filed against the appellant did not specify that the victim was a minor and his daughter. As such, the appellant was not properly informed that he was being charged with qualified rape due to the victim's age and relationship to him. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant's conviction but modified the offense to simple rape and reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE v. DELFIN

    Uploaded by

    Djenral Wesley Soriano
    173 views1 page
    The appellant, Delfin Dela Cruz, was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of raping his 16-year-old daughter and was sentenced to death. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that while the evidence proved the appellant raped his daughter, the RTC erred in imposing the death penalty. The information filed against the appellant did not specify that the victim was a minor and his daughter. As such, the appellant was not properly informed that he was being charged with qualified rape due to the victim's age and relationship to him. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant's conviction but modified the offense to simple rape and reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

    Original Title

    PEOPLE-v.-DELFIN

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellant, Delfin Dela Cruz, was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of raping his 16-year-old daughter and was sentenced to death. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that while the evidence proved the appellant raped his daughter, the RTC erred in imposing the death penalty. The information filed against the appellant did not specify that the victim was a minor and his daughter. As such, the appellant was not properly informed that he was being charged with qualified rape due to the victim's age and relationship to him. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant's conviction but modified the offense to simple rape and reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE v. DELFIN

    Uploaded by

    Djenral Wesley Soriano
    The appellant, Delfin Dela Cruz, was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of raping his 16-year-old daughter and was sentenced to death. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that while the evidence proved the appellant raped his daughter, the RTC erred in imposing the death penalty. The information filed against the appellant did not specify that the victim was a minor and his daughter. As such, the appellant was not properly informed that he was being charged with qualified rape due to the victim's age and relationship to him. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant's conviction but modified the offense to simple rape and reduced the penalty 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

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 

    Appellee, v. DELFIN DELA CRUZ, Appellant, G.R.


    No. 137405. September 27, 2002, PANGANIBAN, J.

    FACTS:

    Marikit, a sixteen years old teenager was raped by her father on October 1996, it
    was narrated by the prosecution that the victim had a reunion with its family on
    his father’s birthday in Occidental Mindoro. The celebration ended at exactly nine
    in the evening and the victim was already preparing to sleep, however, her
    mother summoned and told her that her father wants to talk to her, thus
    together they go to the water pump near their house where her father was
    waiting. The appellant told the victim to come with him at their hut where the
    victim declined but later on obeyed because of fear.

    Upon entering the hut, the appellant tried to strike a conversation and later on
    raped the victim twice, afterwards, the victim filed a complaint on the ground of
    Rape against her father supported by a Medical Certificate. The prosecution
    found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and punishable under Article
    335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which provides for a death penalty
    against rape offenders of under eighteen years old and the offender is the
    parent, guardian, ascendant xxx.

    Subsequently, after the decision was laid down by the prosecution, the appellant
    question the imposition of the death penalty alleging that the RTC erred in
    imposing such.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the RTC erred in imposing death penalty considering that the
    accused was not properly informed about the nature of the case brought against
    him?

    RULING:

    Yes. The Court held the appellant claim is correct. The Court provided that
    Information with regards of minority and relationship at the case at bar must
    specifically be alleged. Since, the information earlier-mentioned was failed to
    alleged, thus, the appellant cannot be held convicted under qualified rape but
    only under a simple rape case. It was stated that the qualifying circumstances of
    minority and relationship must be pleaded at all times, and such appellant must
    be informed by the nature and cause of charges against him to prevent denial of
    due process and denial of information.

    Wherefore, the decision of the RTC was affirmed but modified as to the appellant
    was guilty of simple rape and not qualified rape. In addition, the penalty imposed
    was reduced from death to reclusion perpetua.

    You might also like