This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-08-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| On October 13, 2009, the RTC rendered an Omnibus Judgment[24] convicting the accused-appellant of one count of rape and of acts of lasciviousness. The RTC found AAA's testimony of what had transpired as sincere and truthful, noting though that a specific allegation as to the exact date and month of the commission of rape in 2005 was absent. The trial court thus pointed out the settled doctrine that in a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of rape, not the time of its commission,[25] the latter not being an element of the crime.[26] Further, the accused-appellant cannot ascribe any ill-motive against AAA which could have induced the latter to fabricate such grave charges. The accused-appellant's flight after he learned that charges were filed against him likewise worked to disfavor him. If he were indeed innocent, he would have stayed to vindicate himself from the accusations.[27] | |||||
|
2009-07-17 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| At any rate, in a prosecution for rape, the material fact to be considered is the occurrence of carnal knowledge, not the time of its commission.[28] It is enough that the Information indicates a date which is not so remote as to surprise and prejudice the accused.[29] It is not essential that the date be alleged in the Information with ultimate precision.[30] | |||||
|
2004-03-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Such defense burdens the imagination, to say the least. It is utterly preposterous, if not incredible. Dr. Benedicto, his own witness, contradicted appellant's theory as he found no sign of infection on Laiza's vagina. He even declared that she submitted herself to a physical examination because she complained of being raped, not on account of any alleged accidental injury. We have consistently held that the defense of denial, as in the instant case, is inherently weak, and it becomes even weaker in the face of the positive identification by the victim of the appellant as the violator of her honor.[40] | |||||
|
2002-04-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, leading questions are not allowed. However, we have held that when the witness is a child of tender years, it is proper for the court to allow leading questions[61] as it is usually difficult for a child of such age to state facts without prompting or suggestion.[62] Leading questions are necessary to coax the truth out of their reluctant lips. Here, the decision of the trial court to allow leading questions to Jovelyn was justified, as she was evidently young and unlettered, making the recall of events difficult, if not uncertain. Her cross-examination is quite instructive on this matter, to wit: ATTY. BARANDON: Q: Miss witness, do you know how to write? | |||||
|
2001-02-15 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| This Court agrees with the observation of the Office of the Solicitor General that the allegation of Mercelinda in her Complaint that sometime in 1990 accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her sufficiently informed him of the nature of the charge against him. The date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime as it is not determinative of its commission nor has it any substantial bearing thereof, especially since the specific month the crime was perpetrated in the present case is not material to the defense, which is a mere denial that accused-appellant committed the acts imputed to him.[15] Similarly, in the recent case of People v. Magbanua,[16] this Court said that the allegation in the Information that the acts of sexual intercourse were committed "on (sic) the year 1991 and the days thereafter" substantially apprised accused-appellant of the crime he was charged with, since all the essential elements thereof were stated therein. Moreover, the objection to the Complaint of Mercelinda at this stage is too late.[17] Perhaps accused-appellant should have moved to quash the Complaint at any time before he entered his plea[18] if he believed that the Complaint did not conform substantially to the prescribed form. In other words, his failure to do so is deemed a waiver of such ground.[19] | |||||
|
2000-01-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Noted.[57] With respect to the award of damages, we have recently held that if the commission of rape is effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the penalty of death may be imposed,[58] the civil indemnity for the victim shall not be less than Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00).[59] Based on the foregoing judicial prescription, the trial court's award of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity[60] should be increased to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00). Moreover, the victim is entitled to moral damages under Article 2219 of the Civil Code,[61] without the necessity for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[62] In line with current jurisprudence, accused appellant's victim is entitled to moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).[63] | |||||