Facts: Amado Javier had carnal knowledge of his 16-year old daughter, Julia, three times. Three complaints were likewise filed. The trial court found Amado guilty of the crime of incestuous rape in the first complaint and sentenced to death. And upon failure of the prosecution to prove the use of force by Amado in the second and third complaints, he was just convicted of qualified seduction. Moreover, proof of age was not established by the prosecution, failing to present the birth certificate of Julia.
Issues:
1) Whether the conviction for qualified seduction is proper under an information for rape.
2) Whether proof of age is material in incestuous rape.
Held: Amado should not be convicted of qualified seduction. It is only when the complaint for rape contains allegations for qualified seduction that the accused may be convicted of the latter in case the prosecution fails to prove the use of force by the accused. The accused charged with rape cannot be convicted of qualified seduction under the same information. The last two complaints should instead be dismissed.
Proof of age is particularly necessary in this case considering that the victim’s age, which was then 16 years old, is just two years less than the majority age of 18. In this age of modernism, there is hardly any difference between a 16-yr old and an 18-yr old insofar as physical appearance is concerned. Thus, in this context, the independent proof of actual age of the victim becomes vital so as to remove any doubt that the victim was indeed under 18, and that would qualify the crime and raise the imposable penalty to death. In the absence of such proof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua must be imposed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment