[G.R. No. 192821, March 21 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. APPELLEE, SIXTO PADUA Y FELOMINA, APPELLANT.

FACTS Appellant was charged before the RTC for allegedly raping the victim. The alleged rape happened in 1991 when she was only 6 years old. She didnt report the matter immediately, she only did so after 6 years during her graduation. Appellant was convicted by the RTC for the crime of Statutory rape. He appealed raising the defense of denial and alibi, claiming that he was in Albay, Bicol at that time. The CA noted that AAA's minority cannot be appreciated as the prosecution failed to present the certificate of live birth or any other authentic document to prove the age of AAA at the time of the commission of the offense. ISSUE Whether the independent evidence of (age of the victim) was duly proved by the prosecution HELD We agree with the CA that the appellant cannot be held liable for qualified, much less statutory, rape; the prosecution failed to prove by independent evidence the age of AAA, much less the allegation that she was under the age of 12 when she was raped. The appellate court properly appreciated force and intimidation. In rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation.

A.M. No. MTJ-91-619 January 29, 1993 ATTY. HUGOLINO V. BALAYON, JR., petitioner, vs. JUDGE GAYDIFREDO O. OCAMPO, respondent. FACTS A letter-complaint of Atty. Hugolino V. Balayon, Jr., dated October 9, 1991, charging Judge Gaydifredo O. Ocampo of the Metropolitan, Trial Court, Tupi, South Cotabato with gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct. The charge is grounded on eight complaints, separately. In one of the complainants, a Complaint for Theft entitled, "People vs. Julio Relative and Miller Estigoy", was filed before respondent Judge's sala charging accused of stealing coconut trees.

After the prosecution had rested its case, complainant, as defense counsel, instead of presenting his evidence, filed a Demurrer to the Evidence on June 4, 1991 alleging that the private complainant in said case had no legal personality to sue because he was no longer the owner of the land where the coconut trees were stolen, having failed to redeem the land from the Development Bank of the Philippines. An Opposition to Demurrer to the Evidence, dated June 4, 1991, was filed by the prosecution. On June 18, 1991, respondent Judge issued an Order denying the said Demurrer to the Evidence. On June 29, 1991, complainant filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. On July 1, 1991, the prosecution was ordered to file its Comment on the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. On July 11, 1991, the prosecution filed its Comment and Opposition to the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. On July 17, 1991, the Motion for Reconsideration was denied by respondent Judge. On August 12, 1991, complainant filed a Special Action for Certiorari with the Regional Trial Court contending that respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying complainant's Demurrer to the Evidence. Complainant now charges respondent Judge with gross ignorance of the law and/or grave misconduct in denying his Demurrer to the Evidence. ISSUE Whether the denial made by respondent judge was proper HELD The charge of gross ignorance of the law and/or grave misconduct has no factual basis. Not every error of judgment can be attributable to a judge's ignorance of the law. Until the alleged error shall have been properly raised on appeal and resolved by the proper appellate court, it is generally premature to say that the error was due to the Judge's ignorance of the law. The denial of a demurrer to the evidence is left to the sound discretion of the Court, rather than an indication of ignorance of the law. It was well within the respondent Judge's discretion, absent any showing of bad faith or excess of jurisdiction, for him to have denied complainant's Demurrer to the Evidence. The complaint is therefore dismissed.