This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-12-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Q At what time did the accused rape you for the second time? A Also at that time sir. [Id., p. 17] In People v. Contreras ,[66] the absence of conclusive proof of the carnal knowledge - that there was introduction of the accused's male organ to the complainant's vagina -- led to the acquittal of the accused in one count of rape. Viewed in this light, we find Catalino's acquittal on the third rape charge to be in order. | |||||
|
2001-07-09 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| WILLIAM's notice of appeal from the judgment in Criminal Cases Nos. 47168-69, albeit erroneous since it was directed to the Court of Appeals, may nevertheless be given due course. For even without that or even if he did not appeal from said judgment, we would nevertheless review the same conformably with our ruling in People vs. Alitagtag,[13] as affirmed in People vs. Contreras.[14] We ruled therein that where cases have been consolidated and jointly tried, and only one decision is rendered sentencing the accused to death in one and to reclusion perpetua in the others, he would be deemed to have appealed from the judgment in the latter cases. | |||||
|
2001-05-07 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The preliminary question is whether we can render a decision considering that accused-appellant is still at large. As stated at the beginning, review of the trial court's decision is required under the ruling in People vs. Esparas[20] which held that automatic review in death penalty cases despite the absence of the accused is mandatory considering that "nothing less than life is at stake and any court decision must be as error free as possible." The question raised in that case, whether a judgment of conviction could also be rendered, became moot and academic as the accused was rearrested while her case was pending appeal in this Court.[21] To be sure, in two later cases,[22] in which the accused were also sentenced to death by the trial court, this Court rendered judgment despite the fact that the accused had not been rearrested "in the best interest of justice."[23] It must be noted, however, that in those cases, the decision was favorable to the accused. In one case, the accused was acquitted,[24] while in the other case, the penalty imposed by the trial court was reduced.[25] Thus the question remains whether in the absence of the accused a decision can be rendered affirming a death sentence imposed by the trial court. | |||||
|
2000-09-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| With regard to the incident in December 1992 during which accused-appellant kissed complainant in various parts of her body in the bathroom where she was taking a bath,[38] the crime committed was acts of lasciviousness. The elements of the crime are: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done (a) by using force or intimidation or (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) that the offended party is another person of either sex.[39] Although the information filed was for multiple rape, accused-appellant can be convicted of acts of lasciviousness because the crime of acts of lasciviousness is included in rape.[40] | |||||