This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2008-10-17 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As correctly observed by the CA, the inconsistencies which appellant claims afflict the testimony of AAA pertain to such collateral matters not directly related to the element of carnal knowledge. The exact date of the incident and the place where it took place are not essential elements of the crime of rape; hence, inconsistencies regarding this detail in the statements of AAA and her testimony do not detract from her categorical testimony on the witness stand that appellant had carnal knowledge of her.[90] Also, at what definite place appellant wielded his gun and against whom he made threats with it are matters too marginal to the fact of carnal knowledge that inconsistencies regarding them have no bearing on the outcome of the case, in the light of the unwavering testimony of AAA that appellant had poked a gun at her at the time of the rape incident.[91] Likewise, the disparity in AAA's statements on the manner and degree of her resistance to the assault is not significant for vigorous physical resistance is not a requisite of the crime of rape carried out with intimidation or threat to the life or personal safety of the victim, especially one as vulnerable as AAA on account of her tender age and humble education .[92] | |||||
|
2008-10-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Considering the number of times AAA, a girl of tender age, was subjected to the pervert desire of her own father, the Court finds as minor details, which are not of great significance as to affect AAA's credibility as a witness, her testimony regarding her companion/s and the exact time when she was raped, the person/s to whom she revealed her traumatic experience, the number of houses the family owned, the number of rooms in the house where she was raped, and the condition then prevailing inside the culvert where one of the rape incidents took place. It is settled that inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, when referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the substance of their declarations, their veracity, or the weight of their testimonies, and do not impair the credibility of such witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the assailant. In fact, honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters serve to strengthen rather than destroy the credibility of a witness to a crime, especially so when the crime is shocking to the conscience and numbing to the senses.[11] We have ruled in numerous cases that an errorless recollection of a harrowing incident cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details of an experience so humiliating and so painful as rape.[12] This is especially true in this case, in which the victim was an innocent 13-year-old girl who has been sexually ravished within a span of seven (7) successive months. What is important is that the victim's declarations, both in her sworn statement and her testimony in court, are consistent on basic matters constituting the elements of the crime of rape and the positive identification of the accused-appellant by AAA. | |||||
|
2003-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE IN THE INFORMATIONS.[9] The issue presented concerns the propriety of the death penalty imposed by the trial court upon appellant in each of the four (4) counts of rape. However, priorly we must also inquire if the guilt of the appellant has been sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt in every case. Then the propriety of every death sentence imposed upon appellant must also be scrutinized. For an appeal or automatic review in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing court to correct errors as it may find in the lower court's judgment, regardless of whether it is assigned as an error or not.[10] | |||||
|
2003-06-18 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| For the appellee, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that the victim was not aware of the impending attack, because he had his back to the appellant when he was stabbed, hence there was treachery. Moreover, said the OSG, appellant is unable to point out with specificity the alleged inconsistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Citing the case of People v. Calayca,[19] the OSG submits that an affirmative allegation requires proof to be accepted by the court. Appellant's failure to substantiate his claim of inconsistent testimonies makes his defense untenable, concludes the OSG. | |||||
|
2001-10-17 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Here, the Amended Criminal Information filed against Apolonio Acosta adequately cited his relationship to Maritess but failed to allege Maritess' minority, thereby proscribing the imposition of the death penalty against accused-appellant. The presentation of evidence during trial showing that Maritess was merely twelve (12) years old when the sexual abuse was committed, albeit without any objection from accused-appellant, did not cure the omission nor did it render the requirements of the law substantially complied with by its mere presentation.[9] | |||||
|
2001-06-28 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Although this is the sole question appellant has presented before us for resolution, it is, nevertheless, a well-established rule that in a criminal case, an appeal to the Supreme Court throws the whole case open for review, and it becomes the duty of the Court to correct such errors as may be found in the appealed judgment, whether they are made the subject of assignments of error or not.[48] | |||||
|
2000-06-16 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| x x x x x x x x x" The above-quoted portion provides, inter alia, that where the victim of the crime of rape is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent of the victim, the death penalty shall be imposed. This is among the seven (7) circumstances enumerated in Section 11, which, as we have held in the case of People vs. Garcia,[16] are considered special qualifying circumstances specifically applicable to the crime of rape. In Garcia, this Court en banc declared that "although the crime is still denominated as rape, such circumstances have changed the nature of simple rape by producing a qualified form thereof punishable by the higher penalty of death. We reiterated this ruling in subsequent en banc cases of People vs. Ramos[17] People vs. Leopoldo Ilao,[18] People vs. Omar Medina,[19] and People vs. Artemio Calayca,[20] with further pronouncement that these seven new attendant circumstances introduced in Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659 "partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances and not merely aggravating circumstances," since the said qualifying circumstances are punishable by the single indivisible penalty of death and not reclusion perpetua to death. | |||||
|
2000-06-16 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| The fourth issue is whether or not the rape victim is also entitled to moral and exemplary damages. We rule that aside from the indemnity of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court, the victim is also entitled to moral damages, as held in People vs. Prades, even if there was no proof presented during the trial as basis therefor[23] and exemplary damages since the crime was committed with an aggravating circumstance,[24] thus appellant is also liable for P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.[25] | |||||