This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2011-07-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| This admission makes the sweetheart theory more difficult to defend, for it is not only an affirmative defense that needs convincing proof; [45] after the prosecution has successfully established a prima facie case, [46] the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused, [47] who has to adduce evidence that the intercourse was consensual. [48] | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| With respect to appellant's civil liability, aside from the award of moral damages of P50,000.00, the trial court should have awarded the victim P50,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto. Such award is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.[54] | |||||
|
2004-06-09 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| However, inconsistencies and discrepancies which refer to minor matters are irrelevant to the elements of the crime and cannot be considered as grounds for acquittal.[14] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We likewise award the victim exemplary damages of P25,000.00 in Criminal Case No. U-9332 only. Here, the use of a bolo, a deadly weapon, in the commission of the crime was alleged in the Information and proved during the trial. In People vs. Ronie Gabelinio,[65] citing People vs. Joel Ayuda,[66] we held:"Likewise, the award of exemplary damages is justified. The circumstance of use of a deadly weapon was duly alleged in the information and proven at the trial. In People vs. Edem (G.R. No. 130970, February 27, 2002), we awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in a case of rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon." Three members of this Court maintain that Republic Act No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. Nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed herein. | |||||
|
2004-03-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| evidence of the prosecution and her instinctive demeanor in court, well deserves evidentiary weight and credence sufficient to warrant a finding for the State." We stress the well-settled doctrine that the lower court's assessment of the credibility of a witness is accorded great respect owing to its direct opportunity to observe the latter's demeanor during trial. In People vs. Ayuda,[17] we | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| "PROSECUTOR RIO ESPIRITU on Direct Examination: x x x Q On December 8, 1996, do you know where you were at around 8:00 in the evening? A I was in our house, sir. x x x Q Who were present at that time? A I and my brother-in-law (referring to herein appellant). x x x Q What were you doing at that time at around 8:00 in the evening? A I was inside the house, watching T.V. Q While watching T.V., what happened next? A While watching T.V., my brother-in-law approached me, he was drunk and was holding a bolo. Q x x x, what happened next after he approached you? A x x x my brother-in-law x x x told me to follow him. Q How long was that bolo? A (Witness demonstrating two feet including a handle) COURT: As stipulated by the parties, two feet. PROSECUTOR: Q You said that he directed you to go to the room, what else did he tell you? A He further told me not to make noise and obey all his orders. Q While he was giving you the instruction and while he was threatening you, where was the bolo pointed? A It was directed and pointed at my breast. Q What happened next x x x? A He further told me to remove all my clothes. Q Who removed your clothes? A I was the one, sir. Q Why did you follow his order? A I was scared because he might harm me with his bolo. Q Were you able to undress yourself later? A Yes, sir. Q What happened next after you undressed yourself? A He told me to lie down on the bed. Q Why did you follow his order? A I was forced to follow him because he might kill me. Q What happened next after you lied down on bed? A He removed his short pants and brief and after that he went on top of me. While he was pointing the bolo at me, he went on top of me. Q After he went on top of you, what happened next? A He inserted his private organ into my private organ. COURT: Put on record that the private complainant/victim is crying. PROSECUTOR: Q After he was able to insert his private organ into your private organ, what happened next? A After a while, which I cannot tell how long was it, he stood up. Q After he stood up, did he tell you anything? A Yes. he told me to act naturally as if nothing happened. Q After he stood up and threatened you with those words, what did you do? A After he stood up, he ordered me to dress up and not to reveal what happened because if I reveal what happened, he would kill my sister. Q How sure are you, madam witness, that the private organ of this accused was able to penetrate your private organ? A I felt his private organ was inserted into my private organ because I felt pain and he forced his private organ to penetrate my private organ. x x x Q The following day, in the morning of December 9, 1996, do you know whether your sister again reported to work? A Yes, sir. Q At around what time? A 9:00 in the morning, sir. Q After your sister left x x x, what were you doing at that time x x x? A After my sister went out of the house, while I was going out of the house, he prevented me by closing the door. Q After he closed the door, what happened next? A After closing the door, with hands holding a bolo, he again confronted me and told me to again accommodate him ('Pagbigyan mo uli ako.'). x x x Q When he uttered those words, 'Pagbigyan mo uli ako', while holding the bolo, what happened next? A Because of my fear, I obeyed all his orders. Q Aside from those words uttered to you, what was he doing with that bolo? A It was pointed at me. Q What happened next after he pointed that bolo? A He told me to get inside my room. Q Were you able to go to your room? A Yes, sir. Q What happened next? A He again ordered me to undress. Q x x x, did you follow the order? A Yes, because of my fear I followed all his orders. Q You said that you undressed yourself, how about him, what did he do next? A He told me to lie down. Q What did he do next? A After that, he undressed himself and went on top of me. Q x x x, do you know where was the bolo at that time? A He was holding the bolo being pointed at me. Q After he undressed himself, what happened next? A He raped me again. Q You said that he raped you, how sure are you that his private organ was able to penetrate your private organ? A I felt that he inserted his private organ into my private organ. Q Where were his hands at that time when he inserted his private organ? A His right hand was holding the bolo that was being pointed at me, while his left hand was holding my right hand. Q That was the time that his private organ penetrated your private organ? A Yes, sir. Q Then, how long did this rape occasion last? A Around 30 minutes, sir. Q x x x, what happened next? A He stood up and told me not to reveal what happened between us, specifically to my sister. Q After he uttered those words, what happened next? A He further told me to act naturally as if nothing happened. Q If this person whom you said your brother-in-law raped you on December 8 and 9, 1996 is inside the courtroom, can you identify him? A Yes, sir. Q Will you please point to him? A (Witness pointed to a male person wearing yellow shirt, and when asked of his name, he answered 'Arturo Manambay')."[17] The trial court gave full faith and credence to Jovita's testimony, holding that she narrated her harrowing sexual ordeal at the hands of appellant "in a categorical, forthright, straightforward and clear manner without any pretensions that would tarnish the credibility of her testimony."[18] It is doctrinally settled that the factual findings of the trial court which are supported by the records, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in view of its advantage of having directly observed the demeanor of the witness while testifying.[19] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Here, the prosecution failed to allege in the Informations and prove during the trial any aggravating or mitigating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime. The use of a deadly weapon was alleged in the Informations merely as a qualifying circumstance. Hence, pursuant to the above provisions, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed upon appellant for each count of rape.[35] In People vs. Joel Ayuda,[36] we held: "Where no aggravating circumstance is alleged in the Information and proven during the trial, the crime of rape through the use of a deadly weapon may be penalized only with reclusion perpetua, not death." | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It is doctrinally settled that the factual findings of the trial court which are supported by evidence, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. This is because the trial court has the advantage of observing the victim's demeanor, such as the angry flush of an insisted assertion, the sudden pallor of a discovered lie, the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer, the forthright tone of a ready reply, the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, or the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath.[24] | |||||