This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-07-06 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The court can also convict the accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each and every one of them, especially where the accused has waived his objection to the defects in the information.[41] In People v. Ramon,[42] the trial court found therein guilty of three counts of simple rape based on the imputation in the criminal complaint the commission of the offenses "on or about the month of May, 1995, and prior thereto." This Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for three counts of rape despite its finding that the complaint was indeed flawed, as it charged the accused with more than one count of rape by the bare added phrase "and prior thereto." For the accused's failure to timely question the defect through a motion to quash or a bill of particulars, he was deemed to have waived his objection to the multiplicity of charges. | |||||
|
2001-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We agree with the trial court that no evidentiary weight could be given to the self-serving declarations of appellant. His ratiocination that the rapes could not have been committed in a small house where many people were living deserves scant consideration. We have held time and again that rape does not occur only in seclusion[23] and can be committed in the unlikeliest of places.[24] Situs of rape has been inside a house where there were other occupants;[25] in a room adjacent to where the victim's family was sleeping;[26] or even in a room which the victim shared with the sisters of the accused.[27] Among couples with big families who live in cramped quarters, the presence of other members of the family is not necessarily a deterrent to the commission of rape.[28] It is not impossible for the rape to take place inside a small house with no partition and with five occupants therein, including the accused and the victim.[29] Lust is no respecter of time and place.[30] The scenario illustrated by private complainants wherein they were raped inside their room by their own father is therefore not impossible nor incredible. It may seem improbable but as we held in one case: x x x | |||||
|
2000-07-05 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the contention of ROSENDO, a rape victim might be compelled to submit herself, against her will, to the rapist's demands simply because of fear for life and personal safety.[34] In her testimony, VIRGINITA mentioned that every time ROSENDO would ravish her, he would threaten her not to tell anyone or else he would kill her and that her body "would not be enough to be chopped".[35] The fact that VIRGINITA failed to unequivocally declare that she was threatened or forced by ROSENDO on December 11, 1996 to have sexual congress with him does not negate the fact that the repeated and menacing threats of ROSENDO instilled fear in the mind of VIRGINITA. Furthermore, the moral ascendancy and influence of ROSENDO over VIRGINITA, his stepdaughter, can substitute for violence or intimidation.[36] The use of actual force or intimidation for the rape that ROSENDO committed on December 11, 1996 is therefore not indispensable in sustaining his conviction. | |||||