This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-09-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The Information also alleged that evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act showing that the accused clung to their determination to commit the crime; and (3) the lapse of a period of time between the decision and the execution of the crime sufficient to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of the act.[71] However, none of these elements could be gathered from the evidence on record. | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Absent any showing that the trial court's calibration of the credibility of the witnesses was flawed, we are bound by its assessment.[31] This Court will sustain such findings unless it can be shown that the trial court ignored,[32] overlooked, misunderstood,[33] misappreciated,[34] or misapplied[35] substantial facts and circumstances, which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[36] | |||||
|
2002-02-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The defense likewise makes an issue of the lack of physical evidence such as bruises or marks on the victim's body. Note, however, that as testified to by the medico-legal officer,[25] the healed laceration found on the victim's genitalia was consistent with the fact that rape had taken place. Likewise, the absence of spermatozoa in the victim's vagina would not necessarily negate the commission of rape.[26] Neither would the absence of fresh lacerations prove that she was not raped.[27] In this case, the medico-legal officer, Dr. Tomas Suguitan, testified: Prosecutor: Mr. Witness, could it be possible that even an erected penis was inserted to the hymen, still the hymen would suffer no laceration at all? | |||||