This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-09-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Records indicate that immediately after the incident, elements of the CPDC, PNP-NCR at Camp Karingal were already coordinating with investigators of Station 8-CPDC who had turned over to said office the evidence gathered and referred the witnesses present at the crime scene.[14] As a result of follow-up operations, Joel de Jesus, alias "Tabong," was apprehended on June 19, 1996 at his house at Dahlia St., Fairview, Quezon City. He executed his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated June 20, 1996 and Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated June 21, 1996.[15] | |||||
|
2006-07-21 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The Court does not agree. The circumstance that the judge who wrote the decision had not heard the testimonies of the witnesses does not automatically taint his decision. Here, the decision of the trial court made reference to several transcripts of stenographic notes taken in the course of trial. Likewise, several exhibits were referred to and used as evidence to substantiate the trial court's conclusions. The validity of a decision is not necessarily impaired by the fact that its ponente only took over from a colleague who had earlier presided at the trial. This circumstance alone cannot be the basis for the reversal of the trial court's decision unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation or a misapprehension of the facts,[14] of which we find none. | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant makes an issue of the medical finding that no vaginal laceration was noted. However, the absence of external signs of physical injuries does not necessarily negate rape.[18] Moreover, by itself, the credible, candid, consistent and straightforward testimony of the victim suffices to sustain a conviction for rape beyond reasonable doubt. | |||||
|
2000-12-04 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| As for Ellen's feeble attempts to resist the accused-appellant, it is clear from the evidence that she was unsuccessful in warding off his carnal assault because, as she explained, she was too small compared to him. At any rate, physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety.[9] Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and therefore subjective, and its presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must be viewed in the light of her perception and judgment at the time of the perpetration of the crime.[10] It may be of the moral kind, e.g., the fear caused by threatening a woman with a knife.[11] Here, accused-appellant was holding a hunting knife when Ellen was awakened, covered her mouth, then threatened her with death if she would shout. After the rape, he threatened her with death anew if she would inform her parents about the incident. | |||||