Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    People vs. Esureña (374 SCRA 424 GR 142727 January 23, 2002)

    Uploaded by

    Abdulateef Sahibuddin
    Antonio Esureña was charged with raping his 13-year-old daughter. He argued that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor. He also argued that a qualifying circumstance of the rape occurring in view of relatives was not alleged in the information. The Supreme Court held that testimony as to age is not sufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt of minority. It also held that any qualifying circumstances that increase the penalty must be properly pleaded in the information to respect the accused's right to know the charges.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Esureña (374 SCRA 424 GR 142727 January 23, 2002)

    Uploaded by

    Abdulateef Sahibuddin
    56 views1 page
    Antonio Esureña was charged with raping his 13-year-old daughter. He argued that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor. He also argued that a qualifying circumstance of the rape occurring in view of relatives was not alleged in the information. The Supreme Court held that testimony as to age is not sufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt of minority. It also held that any qualifying circumstances that increase the penalty must be properly pleaded in the information to respect the accused's right to know the charges.

    Original Description:

    Criminal Procedure

    Original Title

    People vs. Esureña [374 SCRA 424; GR 142727; January 23, 2002]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Antonio Esureña was charged with raping his 13-year-old daughter. He argued that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor. He also argued that a qualifying circumstance of the rape occurring in view of relatives was not alleged in the information. The Supreme Court held that testimony as to age is not sufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt of minority. It also held that any qualifying circumstances that increase the penalty must be properly pleaded in the information to respect the accused's right to know the charges.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Esureña (374 SCRA 424 GR 142727 January 23, 2002)

    Uploaded by

    Abdulateef Sahibuddin
    Antonio Esureña was charged with raping his 13-year-old daughter. He argued that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor. He also argued that a qualifying circumstance of the rape occurring in view of relatives was not alleged in the information. The Supreme Court held that testimony as to age is not sufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt of minority. It also held that any qualifying circumstances that increase the penalty must be properly pleaded in the information to respect the accused's right to know the charges.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs.

    Esureña [374 SCRA 424; GR 142727; January 23, 2002]

    Posted by Pius Morados on November 6, 2011

    (Criminal procedure, information, qualifying circumstances)

    Facts: Antonio Esureña 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 Nena’s 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 victim’s relatives of the third degree
    of consanguinity was 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.

    You might also like