This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-10-01 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Courts are mandated to "put prosecution evidence under severe testing." Furthermore, the constitutional presumption of innocence requires them to take "a more than casual consideration" of every circumstance or doubt favoring the innocence of the accused.[24] The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[25] Considering the failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden of proof and overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, it is not only appellant's right to be freed; it is, even more, this Court's constitutional duty to acquit her.[26] | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Tecla Cacot, Edna Anac, Enida Corpuz and Hector Corpuz related in court that even after the supposed rape incidents, they would regularly gather under a manzanita tree, drink beer and eat besuto. During these occasions, Julita was observed to have shown no signs of having been a rape victim but, on the contrary, was enjoying herself with the rest of the group. Enida testified to the "unusual closeness" between Julita and Eliarda. Edna said that one time Julita even reserved a seat for appellant and later offered him a drink. Hector Corpuz witnessed the confrontation between the wife of appellant, Mrs. Eliarda, and Julita when the former accused Julita of carrying on with appellant. In October 1998, or a few weeks after the last sexual congress, Julita herself admitted to have gone to appellant's house to join his family in commemorating the death anniversary of his mother-in-law. Corroborative evidence that tend to support the sweetheart theory could assume importance when there are reasons to entertain some doubts on the accuracy of the stance taken by the prosecution.[14] | |||||
|
2002-08-01 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A: None.[20] Doctrinally, the findings of fact of a trial court are not disturbed on appeal, except where it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have materially affected the outcome of the case.[21] | |||||
|
2000-12-04 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In reviewing rape cases, the Supreme Court is guided by well-established principles,[28] such as: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[29] | |||||