This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2009-07-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We cannot sustain petitioner's argument. Petitioner failed to raise the issue of the defective information before the trial court through a motion for bill of particulars or a motion to quash the information. Petitioner's failure to object to the allegation in the information before she entered her plea of not guilty amounted to a waiver of the defect in the information.[10] Objections as to matters of form or substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal.[11] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The failure of AAA to recall minor details and the exact dates of the incidents of rape and sexual assault likewise does not affect the veracity of her testimony. These lapses are understandable taking into account the nature of these crimes she suffered at her young age. As we have held in a number of rape cases involving minor victims, the Court cannot impose the burden of exactness, detailedness, and flawlessness on the victim's recollection of her harrowing experiences.[32] | |||||
|
2009-04-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The information must at all times embody the essential elements of the crime charged by setting forth the facts and circumstances that bear on the culpability and liability of the accused so that he can properly prepare for and undertake his defense.[32] In short, the allegations in the complaint or information, as written, must fully inform or acquaint the accused - the primary reader of and the party directly affected by the complaint or information - of the charge/s laid. | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Rape is consummated from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim.[56] Carnal knowledge is synonymous with sexual intercourse.[57] There is carnal knowledge if there is the slightest penetration of the sexual organ of the female by the sexual organ of the male.[58] All the elements of the offense, namely, (a) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) that the same was committed by using force and intimidation,[59] were already present and nothing more was left for the offender to do, having performed all the acts necessary to produce the crime and accomplish it. Full penetration of the vagina is not essential; any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight, is sufficient. Entry of the penis into the labia or lips of the female organ, even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is sufficient to warrant conviction for consummated rape. Thus, complete or full penetration of the vagina is not required for rape to be consummated. Any penetration, in whatever degree, is enough to raise the crime to its consummated stage.[60] | |||||
|
2007-08-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the crime of rape, the conviction of an accused invariably depends upon the credibility of the victim as she is oftentimes the sole witness to the dastardly act. Thus, the rule is that when a woman claims that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed and that if her testimony meets the crucible test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[19] Ultimately and oftentimes, the resolution of the case hinges on the credibility of the victim's testimony - a question that this Court usually leaves for the trial court to determine, for it is doctrinal that factual findings of trial courts, particularly the assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are given much weight and accorded the highest respect on appeal.[20] This is only proper considering that the trial court has the unique and singular opportunity to personally observe a witness' demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination.[21] It is already well-settled that an appellate court would generally not disturb the factual findings of the trial court in the absence of a clear showing that the court had failed to appreciate facts and circumstances which, if taken into account, would materially affect the outcome of the case.[22] | |||||
|
2007-07-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In rape, the gravamen of the offense, being the carnal knowledge of a woman, the date is not an essential element, hence, the specification of the exact date or time of its commission is not important. [20] | |||||
|
2007-03-07 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The issue of a witness's credibility is best addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which had the unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand and note her demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. Hence, on this issue, findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless the lower court overlooked, ignored, misapprehended, or misinterpreted certain facts or circumstances so material such as to affect the outcome of the case.[21] No compelling reason was shown why this Court should depart from the findings of the trial court, which found the testimony of AAA as believable, positive, clear and convincing.[22] | |||||
|
2006-11-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Prior to its most recent amendment, Section 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, which was in effect at the time the Information against petitioner was filed, states: Sec. 9. Cause of accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense must be stated in ordinary and concise language without repetition, not necessarily in the. terms of the statute defining the offense, but in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged and enable the court to pronounce judgment.[12] In People v. Almendral,[13] the Court held thus: The information filed against an accused is intended to inform him of the accusations against him in order that he could adequately prepare his defense. It is thus textbook doctrine that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. To ensure that the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him is not violated, the information must state the name of the accused, the designation given to the offense by the statute, a statement of the acts or omissions so complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time and date of the commission of the offense, and the place where the offense has been committed. It must embody the essential elements of the crime charged by setting forth the facts and circumstances that have a bearing on the culpability and liability of the accused so that he can properly prepare for and undertake his defense.[14] In the present case, the Information filed against petitioner did not specify the alleged fraudulent acts or false pretenses that supposedly induced private complainant to part with his money. Hence, petitioner may not be convicted of Estafa as defined under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code since the prosecution failed to allege the essential elements of this kind of offense. | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| In the first issue raised by appellant, he claims that "the credibility of prosecution witnesses Antonio Montilla and Stephen Egos [was] impaired by their failure to explain satisfactorily why they did not present themselves as eyewitnesses to the police and to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cebu when this case was still being investigated prior to its filing in court." As a rule, the appellate court gives full weight and respect to the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses since the trial court judge has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness.[15] The trial court in its decision made the following determination:The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have inspired belief and therefore have to be given full faith and credence over the testimony of co-accused Bayani Roma and his witnesses. The prosecution witnesses' demeanor in court [was] straightforward and candid, there [was] no tinge of ill will that can be ascribed to them to falsely testify against the accused. | |||||