This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-03-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This argument deserves scant consideration. Definitely, the victim could not have witnessed the bestial act of the appellant while she was in the state of unconsciousness. As articulated in People v. San Pedro[13] | |||||
|
2007-01-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| To be sure, there have been instances when this Court convicted an accused of the crime of rape committed while their victims were unconscious for as we held in the case of People v. Palapal[21] (i)t is but to be expected that if the sexual assault was committed against the victim while the latter was in a state of unconsciousness, she would not be able to testify on the actual act of sexual intercourse. It is precisely when the sexual intercourse is performed when the victim is unconscious that the act constitutes the statutory offense of rape especially when, as in the instant case, the loss of consciousness was the result of appellant's act of violence. x x x.[22] In the subsequent case of People v. San Pedro,[23] our pronouncement was that | |||||