This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-12-14 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Still, Webb is not entitled to acquittal for the failure of the State to produce the semen specimen at this late stage. For one thing, the ruling in Brady v. Maryland[9] that he cites has long be overtaken by the decision in Arizona v. Youngblood,[10] where the U.S. Supreme Court held that due process does not require the State to preserve the semen specimen although it might be useful to the accused unless the latter is able to show bad faith on the part of the prosecution or the police. Here, the State presented a medical expert who testified on the existence of the specimen and Webb in fact sought to have the same subjected to DNA test. | |||||
|
2009-12-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Paterna's naturally biased testimony in support of her husband's denial of culpability deserves scant consideration in light of the positive identification and categorical declaration made by AAA against the appellant. When the denial of the accused is tended to be established only by himself, his relatives, or friends, such denial should be accorded the strictest scrutiny--it is necessarily suspect and cannot prevail over the testimonies of the more credible testimonies for the prosecution.[34] So it must be here. | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is true that Irene Torilio corroborated the foregoing testimony of appellant Ausencio. However, it should be noted that she is the comadre and close friend of appellants Ausencio and Lutgardo's mother.[33] We have held that testimonies of relatives and friends of the accused which corroborate the accused's alibi are suspect and should be received with caution because of perceived bias.[34] In addition, the RTC, the Court of Appeals, and this Court found the testimonies of Joselito and Marcos identifying appellants as the authors of the crime to be more credible than those of appellant Ausencio and Irene. Joselito and Marcos were disinterested witnesses, and no ill motive on their part was shown when they testified against appellants. It is settled that the positive and categorical identification of the accused, without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the crime, prevails over alibi.[35] | |||||
|
2009-08-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| At any event, her having been sexually assaulted by someone else does not foreclose the possibility of Achas having raped her also. As it were, CCC was not present when Achas--to satisfy his lust, at least the second time around--dragged AAA into the adjoining store. In other words, CCC did not, as he could not, testify on the physical impossibility of the crime having being committed by his father. We go back to the oft-cited jurisprudential gem that a young girl will not have the courage and strength to concoct a tale of defloration against a stepfather and relate in public all its horrifying were she not in fact sexually violated. The Court cannot bring its mind to a rest that a girl of tender age--like AAA, who has not been shown to have ill motive to falsely testify against her stepfather--would allow herself to go through the humiliation of a public trial if not to pursue justice for what has happened.[34] As to the testimony of CCC, we have previously held that when the denial of the accused is tended to be established only by himself, his relatives, or friends, his denial of culpability should be accorded the strictest scrutiny; their testimonies are necessarily suspect and cannot prevail over the testimonies of the more credible witnesses for the prosecution.[35] So it must be here. | |||||
|
2008-01-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The trial court and the appellate court imposed upon appellant the death penalty. However, in view of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346,[9] the imposition of the death penalty has been prohibited and in lieu thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed, without eligibility for parole. We also reduce the award of moral damages from P1,000,000 to P50,000 and increase the civil indemnity from P50,000 to P75,000 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[10] Furthermore, since the offense is attended by aggravating circumstances, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 should also be imposed.[11] | |||||