This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-04-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Since AAA was born on May 5, 1984, and the rape occurred sometime in 1996, she could not have been "then only 10 years old" as alleged in the information. If the rape occurred prior to her birthday on May 5, 1996, she was below 12 years old. If the rape occurred after May 5, 1996, she was more than 12 years old. The prosecution presented evidence, however, without the objection of the defense, that accused-appellant employed force and intimidation to accomplish the rape. People v. Abiera[45] is instructive:The appellant maintains that he cannot be convicted of rape committed under one mode when the information alleged another mode. He cites the case of People v. Pailano, where this Court held that to convict the appellant on the finding that he had committed rape while the victim was unconscious or otherwise deprived of reason and not through force and intimidation, which was the method alleged would violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. | |||||
|
2006-02-13 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| However, this issue has already been directly addressed in People v. Abiera,[22] and later in People v. Atienza,[23] where we upheld the conviction for rape committed under one mode when the information alleged another. | |||||
|
2005-01-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In any case, it is a doctrine in criminal law that minor inconsistencies in testimonies strengthen rather than weaken the witness' credibility for they eliminate the impression of a rehearsed testimony. Particularly in rape cases, this court does not expect a rape victim to recall every minute detail that occurred during her horrible ordeal. As we declared in People v. Abiera,[19] "a rape victim cannot push out of her mind the violent attack upon her chastity but she is nevertheless not expected to remember all the sordid details of that traumatic experience."[20] | |||||
|
2005-01-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In any case, it is a doctrine in criminal law that minor inconsistencies in testimonies strengthen rather than weaken the witness' credibility for they eliminate the impression of a rehearsed testimony. Particularly in rape cases, this court does not expect a rape victim to recall every minute detail that occurred during her horrible ordeal. As we declared in People v. Abiera,[19] "a rape victim cannot push out of her mind the violent attack upon her chastity but she is nevertheless not expected to remember all the sordid details of that traumatic experience."[20] | |||||