Case Digest - focusing on Admissibility of DNA evidence in the Supreme Court of the Philippines.Full description
People vs AmaguinFull description
John Dy vs PeopleFull description
People v Acierto case digestFull description
People Yatar EvidenceFull description
G.R. No. 207816, Feb. 24, 2016 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff!""ellee, #$. R!%L &!'ON T%!N(O, !))*$e+!""ellant. F!TS Raul Yamon Tuando was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape by the trial court for raping a 13-year-old girl who is the daughter of his common-law wife.
The victim AAA was repeatedly raped and abused by Tuando to her damage and preudice. The mother of AAA learned about the ordeal of her daughter when she was found to be pregnant after a chec!-up. AAA"s mother let her stay at her employer"s house until she gave birth. #hen AAA visited her bothers at their home$ she was again raped by Tuando$ which prompted AAA"s mother to file a complaint before the barangay officials. Tuando was then transferred in the custody of the %&'. Tuando denied raping AAA. (e testified that sometime in the year )**+$ he and AAA had a relationship li!e a husband husband and wife but only started started to be se,ually intimate intimate in anuary anuary )**. Their relationshi relationship p was !ept secret because during that time$ he and &&& were still in a common-law relationship. The appellate court found no error on the conviction of the accused. 't placed more weight on the findings of fact of the trial udge who was in the best position to competently rule on the veracity of AAA"s testimony. (ence$ the appeal. Tuando raises that he was denied of due process thereby violating his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. ISS%E #hether or not Tuando was denied due process. HEL( %/.
As embodied in 0ection 1 21$ 2 1$ Article ''' of the 1 456 7onstitution$ no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. 8urther$ paragraph ) of the same section$ it provides that in all criminal criminal prosecu prosecutio tions$ ns$ the accuse accused d has a right right to be informed informed of the nature nature and cause cause of the accusation against him. 't is further provided under 0ections 5 and 4 of Rule 11* of the Revised Rules of 7ourt that a complaint or information to be filed in court must contain a designation given to the offense by the statute$ besides the statement of the acts or omissions constituting the same$ and if there is no such designation$ reference should be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it and the acts or omissions complained of as c onstituting the offense. The accused was charged with rape committed sometime in anuary )** against AAA. (e was able to present evidence proving where he was on anuary )** when the crime was committed. 'n fact$ he was able to present evidence based on sweetheart defense in that he and AAA were lovers and that they had a consensual se,ual intercourse on the said date. 9uring trial$ he testified that he and AAA were in a secret relationship as husband and wife and he was surprised when he was charged with rape. (e was sufficiently informed of the crime he was accused of. This is clear from the defense that he mounted$ i.e.$ that the victim is his sweetheart and that they treated each other as spouses. 'n short$ Tuando Tuando was not denied denied of his consti constitut tution ional al right right and was given given every every opport opportuni unity ty to answer answer the accusation against him.