This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-12-14 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| The CA was correct in affirming the sentence imposed by the RTC upon each of the accused-appellants Webb, Lejano, Gatchalian, Rodriguez, Fernandez and Estrada. The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua because the imposition of the death penalty under the Revised Penal Code (in Article 335 thereof, as amended by R.A. No. 2632 and R.A. No. 4111, when by reason or on the occasion of rape, a homicide is committed), was prohibited by the Constitution at the time the offense was committed.[169] At any rate, the subsequent passage of R.A. No. 9346 entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines," which was signed into law on June 24, 2006, would have mandated the imposition on accused-appellants the same penalty of reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2010-03-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We disagree. The absence of spermatozoa does not necessarily result in the conclusion that rape was not committed.[51] Convictions for rape with homicide have been sustained on purely circumstantial evidence.[52] In those cases, the prosecution presented other tell-tale signs of rape such as the laceration and description of the victim's pieces of clothing, especially her undergarments, the position of the body when found and the like.[53] | |||||
|
2000-12-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Aside from being uncorroborated, the various places which accused-appellants claimed they were staying were not of such distance as to preclude them from being at the place of the incident at the probable time of death of the victim. In order for alibi to prevail, the defense must establish by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and not merely that the accused was somewhere else.[21] | |||||