This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2003-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| This Court has consistently ruled that both the age of the offended party and her relationship with the accused must be alleged in the information and positively proved before the death penalty can be properly imposed.[26] Stated otherwise, the failure to allege the fact of relationship between the accused and the victim in the information for rape is fatal and consequently, bars conviction of its qualified form which is punishable by death. Qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment in order not to violate the constitutional right of the accused to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him.[27] In all four indictments in this case, there was no specific allegation of the qualifying circumstances of the minority of the victim and her relation to the accused, thus, he can only be convicted of that offense, simple rape,[28] for which the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua and not death. | |||||
|
2002-02-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Basic is the rule that alibi is easy to concoct, and accused-appellant failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. While, indeed, accused-appellant's common-law wife Liza Almazan corroborated his alibi, the trial court aptly pointed out that witnesses who are either wives or mothers of the accused, in almost all instances, would freely perjure themselves for the sake of their loved ones.[31] Consequently, accused-appellant's defense of alibi can not prosper.[32] | |||||
|
2001-03-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, Maribel's tale of accused-appellant's sexual abuse bears the earmarks of truth and candor. The tears she shed during her testimony further enhance her credibility as they indicate the outrage and distress she felt over what accused-appellant had done to her.[27] This Court is hard put to dismiss the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, particularly if it constitutes incestuous rape, as a mere concoction. For normally, no person would disclose the fact that she had been raped, subject herself to medical examination, and willingly undergo the humiliation of a public trial and testify on the details of her ordeal, especially at the hands of her father, were it not the truth.[28] | |||||
|
2001-03-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| With respect to accused-appellant's alibi, we hold that such defense cannot prevail over complainant's positive identification of accused-appellant as her rapist.[45] | |||||