Photo from Pexels | Pixabay
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The Supreme Court has reiterated that using common family terms – like “niece” or “uncle” – in a criminal charge is enough to inform the accused of the nature of their relationship to the victim, especially when that relationship qualifies the crime and increases the penalty.
AAA positively identified her maternal uncle, herein accused-appellant, in open court as the person who sexually abused her. She narrated that when she was 8 years old, she and CCC, her mother, visited her maternal grandmother. On that night, while having dinner, accused-appellant stretched his left foot and inserted his toe into her vagina. When her grandfather left the house, accused-appellant dragged her to a hut, undressed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina three times.
The accused-appellant warned AAA that her parents would be killed if she tells anyone about the incident. In 2011, the accused-appellant dragged her again to a nipa hut and sexually ravished her.
Dr. Tabungar, a Child Protection Specialist, testified that she found a laceration on AAA’s hymen.
The accused-appellant denied the accusation against him.
The RTC found accused-appellant guilty of statutory rape and imposed a higher penalty because of his relationship to the victim.
The CA concurred with RTC, but ruled that the RTC erred in qualifying the crime by reason of relationship because the Information did not expressly state the accused-appellant is AAA’s relative within the third civil degree.
The Supreme Court’s decision
The SC clarified that using the common terms that clearly define the relationship is sufficient to inform the accused and uphold fairness and due process. In this case, the Information expressly stated that the victim was BBB’s own niece. Although it did not specify the exact degree of their relationship, it clearly described their connection in ordinary language. A description that clearly and categorically identified the victim as BBB’s niece satisfies the requirement to inform him fully and prepare a defense.
BBB was sentenced to up to 40 years in prison, without eligibility for parole. He was also ordered to pay PhP300,000.00 in damages.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.