ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 126199. June 20, 2000]

PEOPLE vs. ERNESTO SEVILLA

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 20 2000.

G.R. No. 126199 (People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Sevilla.)

For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of this Court, dated December 8, 1999, convicting movant Ernesto Sevilla of the crime of incestuous rape and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act. No. 7659.

Through counsel de oficio, movant prays for the reduction of the penalty imposed upon him for the reason that the minority of his daughter - victim, Myra Sevilla, was never proved in open court. He maintains that under existing laws and jurisprudence, to justify imposition of the death penalty, the circumstances of relationship and minority of the victim should not only be alleged in the information but must likewise be proven during the trial.

The contention of movant is untenable.

Myra's age or minority has never been raised as an issue before the trial court and before this Court on automatic review. As correctly pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General in its Comment, movant "never objected to the prosecution's offer of the testimony of private complainant whose purpose, among others is to prove 'the material allegations in the Information,' which states the age of the private complainant as 'fourteen years old'".1 Comment on Accused-Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2; Rollo, p. 138.

What is more, the victim's minority was impliedly admitted by movant, when he testified that another daughter of his was 15 years old and the victim, Myra, is younger.2 Ibid , Rollo, p. 139 citing TSN, p. 9, July 12, 1995. Consequently, that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident is borne out by the records on hand and was therefore considered by the Court in convicting the movant.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration under consideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

Vitug, J., is abroad on official business.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE