This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-06-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Anguac's claim that it is impossible for AAA's young siblings sleeping beside or near her not to be awakened while she was allegedly being rape is untenable. Lust, being a very powerful human urge, is, to borrow from People v. Bernabe, "no respecter of time and place."[12] Rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest places and circumstances, and, as recent jurisprudence shows, by the most unlikely persons. The fact that AAA's siblings were not awakened at the time she was ravished is not improbable. We have observed in more than one occasion that rape could take place in the same room where other members of the family were sleeping;[13] that it is not impossible to commit rape in a small room even if there are several persons in it.[14] We have taken judicial notice of the fact that among poor couples with big families cramped in small quarters, copulation does not seem to be a problem despite the presence of other persons.[15] | |||||
|
2004-04-28 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Anent appellant's defenses of denial and alibi, the same utterly failed to show that he could not have committed the crimes charged. Both defenses are intrinsically weak. Denial is a negative and self-serving assertion that cannot overcome the victim's affirmative, categorical, and convincing testimony.[36] Also, his alibi can easily be fabricated, and for it to prosper, it must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission and not merely assert that he was somewhere else. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of the access between the two places.[37] | |||||
|
2003-09-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant could only raise the defense of denial. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be supported by strong evidence of lack of culpability. It is a negative, self-serving evidence, which cannot be accorded greater weight than the testimony of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters.[20] Thus, appellant cannot be liberated from his predicament even on his assertion that he loves Arlyn, being his only child. | |||||