People vs. Concepcion [386 SCRA 74; GR 136844, August 1,2002]Posted by Pius Morados on November 6, 2011 (Criminal procedure, information, qualifying and aggravating circumstances)Facts: The RTC finds appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The information failed to specify treachery as a circumstance qualifying the killing to murder, and the same bears no mention of the aggravating circumstance that the appellant was a policeman on duty at the time of the killing.Issue: WON failure of specifying qualifying and aggravating circumstances in the information could still be appreciated to increaseliability.Held: No. Every complaint or information must state not only the qualifying but also the aggravatingcircumstances. Since the information failed to specify treachery as a circumstance qualifying the killing to murder, under the present Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, treachery has to be considered a generic aggravating circumstance only. Consequently, the crime committed is homicide and not murder.Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of official position, not having been alleged in the information, couldthusnot be appreciated to increase appellantsliability.There being one mitigating circumstance ofvoluntarysurrender and one aggravating circumstance of treachery, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellants sentence should be within the range of prision mayor as minimum, and the medium period of reclusion temporal as maximum (penalty for homicide RPC Art 429).People vs. Daganio [374 SCRA 365; GR 137385, January 23,2002]Posted by Pius Morados on November 6, 2011 (Criminal procedure, information, minority and relationship)Facts: Accused-appellantwas charged with rape by his minor daughter. The information alleged that the victim was then eleven years old. This fact was established through the testimony of the victims own mother, and admitted by the defense at the trial that the presentation of the victims certificate of live birth was dispensed with at theinstance ofthe defense counsel.Issue: WON minority of the victim and her relationship to the accused must be duly alleged and proved to justify the imposition of the death penalty.Held: Yes. It is a rule thatminorityof the victim and her relationship to the accused must be duly alleged and proved to justify the imposition of the death penalty. In some cases, we did not mete out the death penalty for failure of theprosecution topresent the minors birth certificate or for non presentation of independent evidence that would prove the victims age. Being the victims mother, Laureta Domingto has personal knowledge of the age of the victim.People vs. Esurea [374 SCRA 424; GR 142727; January 23,2002]Posted by Pius Morados on November 6, 2011 (Criminal procedure, information, qualifying circumstances)Facts: Antonio Esurea was charged with rape of his 13 year old daughter before the Regional Trial Court. The information alleged that the victim was a minor. And it was witnessed by Nenas sisters.Antonio faults the trial court for imposing the supreme penalty of death contending that a.) minority of the victim was not proved clearly and convincingly; and b.) the other qualifying circumstance that rape was committed in the presence and in full view of the victims relatives of the third degree ofconsanguinitywas not alleged in the information.Issue:1. WON minority of the victim alleged in the informationcan be appreciated even if it was not duly proven during trial.2. WON qualifying circumstances not alleged in the information butproved can be appreciated.Held: Both No. Testimony of a person as to her age,although hearsay, is admissible as evidence of family tradition, it cannot be considered proof of age beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, qualifying circumstance of minority cannot be appreciated.Qualifying circumstance which increases the penalty by degree rather than merely affect the period of the penalty, as in the aggravating circumstances, must be properly pleaded in the information consistent with the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him.People vs. Villarama, 397 SCRA 306; GR No. 139211. February 12,2003]Posted by Pius Morados on November 7, 2011 (Criminal procedure, information, relationship with the victim)Facts: Appellant Villarama was charged with rape of a 4 year old child. The informationm states that the accused is the uncle of the victim.A circumstance of rape is provided in par.1, Art. 335 as amended by RA 3659, when the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consaguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.Paragraph 4 of the same law further provides, when the victim is a religious or a child below 7 years old.The RTC rendered a decision, finding accuse-appellant guilty and imposed the death sentence on him.Issue: WON it is enough for the information to merely allege that appellant is the uncle of the victim.Held: No. Jurisprudence dictates that if the offender is a relative, the information must allege that he is a relative by consaguinity or affinity [as the case may be] within the 3rd civil degree. It is not enough for the information to merely allege that appellant is the uncle of the victim even if the prosecution is able to prove the same during trial.Note: The shock of an unwelcome genital penetration on a woman is unimaginable, more so to a 4 year old child. Such a brutal experience constituted unspeakable trauma.