ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 137648.September 25, 2001]

PEOPLE vs. IRENEO PADILLA

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 25 2001.

G.R. No. 137648(People of the Philippines vs. Ireneo Padilla.)

This treats of the motion for reconsideration filed by accused-appellant of tile decision of this Court dated March 30, 2001 in G.R. No. 137648 affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of rape and the imposition of the death penalty.

In support of his motion, accused-appellant relies on the case of People vs. Liban ¹ G.R. Nos. l38247 and 138330.decided by this Court on November 22, 2000. It should be noted that in the Liban case, this Court specifically pointed out that other than the bare testimony of the victim, who was ten years old, there was nothing else in tile records that proved the correct age of the victim. Since the only evidence of the victim's age was her own declaration in court, we held that minority was not sufficiently established.

In the present case, on the other hand, aside from the victim's own testimony as to her age, her own mother also testified that she was ten years old at the time of the incident. This coupled with the trial court's own assessment of the victims age on the basis of her physical attributes and demeanor, taken together, clearly established the victim's minority.

It likewise serves to reiterate that independent proof of tile victim's age becomes paramount when the age so alleged is near the threshold age of eighteen and it is difficult for the trial court to establish tile victim's age on the basis merely of physical features and demeanor.

Accused-appellant finally contends that it was impossible for accused-appellant to have raped the victim when the latter herself alleged that both her hands and feet were tied is likewise unavailing. This stance cannot stand in tile face of the victim's clear and straightforward testimony as to how she was raped by accused-appellant.

IN VIEW THEREOF, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

Very truly yours,

LUZMINDA 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