This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-09-19 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Thirdly, the conviction of Lupac for rape is upheld despite AAA's minority under 12 years not being competently proved. This is because the information also properly charged him with raping AAA by its express averment that the carnal knowledge of her by him had been "against her will and consent." The essence of rape is carnal knowledge of a female either against her will (through force or intimidation) or without her consent (where the female is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or is under 12 years of age, or is demented).[17] The Prosecution showed during the trial that AAA had been asleep when he forced himself on her. Such showing competently established the rape thus charged, as defined by paragraph 1 of Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code,[18] for AAA, being unconscious in her sleep, was incapable of consenting to his carnal knowledge of her. Indeed, the Court has uniformly held in several rulings that carnal knowledge of a female while she was asleep constituted rape.[19] | |||||
|
2002-08-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence as a whole.[14] The testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.[15] Such is the testimony given by Linda Benitez. Her testimony was express, direct, and explicit. Hence, it is worthy of belief. Likewise, appellant's defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal identification of appellant made by Linda in court.[16] Positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of | |||||
|
2001-11-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Well-enshrined in jurisprudence is the principle that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not generally disturb the findings of the trial court,[11] unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[12] This is because the trial judge is in a better position to decide the question of credibility since he has personally heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying.[13] While it is true that the defense presented three witnesses who swore that it was a different person who committed the crime, the trial court disbelieved their testimonies on substantial grounds. For one, the records show that defense witnesses Ayuban and Reyes did not actually see the shooting. They merely saw a Roy Velos, running away from the scene of the crime, as opposed to the two prosecution witnesses who were right beside the victim when he was gunned down and who actually saw appellant shoot the victim. Strangely, Ayuban, De los Reyes and Reyes got a look at Velos' face because as he was passing them, the cover of his face (a handkerchief according to Ayuban, a towel according to delos Reyes and a jacket according to Reyes) dropped or moved and conveniently unmasked appellant's face. | |||||
|
2000-11-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, states that rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman who is, inter alia, unconscious. This Court has held that carnal knowledge with a woman who is asleep constitutes rape.[21] In People v. Conde,[22] the complainant was a 38-year old housewife who was then sleeping when she felt something hard penetrating her private parts. When she opened her eyes, she saw the accused on top of her. The doctor who examined the complainant testified that it is possible for a woman to be raped while asleep and that if she had several childbirths, she may be raped even without being awakened. In People v. Caballero,[23] there was a birthday celebration in the house of the complainant. When the party was over at about 1:00 a.m., the accused, who was one of the guests, asked permission to sleep in her house, together with the other members of the household, on the pretext that it was already late. As the house had only one room, everybody slept therein, including the complainant and the accused. Thinking that the accused was her husband, the complainant did nothing to oppose the act until it was consummated. It is evident that the complainant would not have consented to the act had she known that the man was not her husband. In People v. Corcino,[24] the accused had earlier left the house of the complainant and returned at about midnight. The complainant's husband was away. While everybody was asleep, the complainant woke up feeling the weight of a man upon her and having sexual intercourse with her. Believing he was her husband, she called him by his name but got no answer. She again called him and the accused answered in a low voice, from which she knew that the man on top of her was not her husband, and she pushed him away. In People v. Dayo,[25] the accused knew that the husband of the complainant was away. The complainant was sleeping beside her 13 year-old son when the accused raped her. The boy, upon seeing the accused on top of his mother, tried to wake her up by touching her but she did not wake up nor answer him. After consummating his lewd designs, the accused left. | |||||