BVR CONSULTING INC
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • I.T. SOLUTIONS
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • SPECIAL PROJECTS
    • WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
    • ADVISORY
  • BVR ACCOUNTING
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • ADVISORY
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
    • AUDIT
  • BVR LAW
  • CONTACT US
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
Click to set custom HTML

a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer. 
this webpage is
 primarily designed to assist students of law in their studies. It is merely a tool. The use of our Services does not guarantee success in obtaining a law degree nor in passing the Bar Exams. we makes no warranties or representations of any kind, whether expressed or implied for the Services provided. The cases, laws, and other publications found in this site are of public domain, collected from public sources such as the Supreme Court online library. The content however have been heavily modified, formatted, and optimized for better user experience, and are no longer perfect copies of their original. we gives no warranty for the accuracy or the completeness of the materials. This site also contains materials published by the students, professors, lawyers, and other users of the our Services. 


People v. Soria, 685 SCRA 483

10/22/2020

0 Comments

 
People v. Soria
685 SCRA 483
​
Facts:
Accused, who is the father of private complainant "AAA", was charged of the crime of rape. The Information states that the accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously with force and intimidation commit an act of sexual assault upon the person of one "AAA", a minor, 7 years of age, by then and there inserting his penis into the genital of said complainant, all against her will and consent, which act debases, degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of said "AAA", as a human being. However, in the Information filed, there was no proof attached on the age of the private complainant at the time the crime was committed. Nevertheless, the RTC convicted the accused for the crime charged and was sentence with the maximum penalty of death.
Issue: WON the RTC rightfully convicted the accused
Held:
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the penalty should only be Reclusion Temporal because minority in this rape case was only considered as aggravating circumstance and not qualifying because of the failure to describe minority in the Information. It is settled that when either one of the qualifying circumstances is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the information and proved by the evidence, may be considered only as an aggravating circumstance.
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    September 2024
    August 2024
    May 2024
    December 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2018

    Categories

    All
    Agrarian Law
    Articles-of-incorporation
    By-laws
    Constitutional Law
    Criminal Law
    Law
    Persons And Family Relations

    RSS Feed

Copyright Notice
Copyright © – 2025, All Rights Reserved.


Contact Us
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • I.T. SOLUTIONS
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • SPECIAL PROJECTS
    • WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
    • ADVISORY
  • BVR ACCOUNTING
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • ADVISORY
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
    • AUDIT
  • BVR LAW
  • CONTACT US
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG