This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-06-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| For one to be convicted of qualified rape, at least one of the aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 266-B[38] of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, must be alleged in the information and duly proved during the trial.[39] In the instant case, the aggravating/qualifying circumstance of minority (under twelve years old) and relationship have been alleged in the Information. AAA's minority has been proved by her Certificate of Live Birth showing that she was born on 1 July 1998, thus, she was only eight (8) years old when she was raped by the appellant on 24 July 2006. As regards the qualifying circumstance of relationship, it is alleged in the Information that AAA is the granddaughter of the appellant. The appellant himself admitted during trial that AAA is his granddaughter, being the daughter of his son. Under prevailing jurisprudence, admission in open court of relationship has been held to be sufficient and, hence, conclusive to prove relationship with the victim.[40] | |||||
|
2013-11-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The RTC imposed upon appellant the penalty of death for committing the crime of qualified rape through sexual intercourse in Criminal Case No. 6572. The Information in this case alleged the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority. Appellant is the father of "AAA" and he admitted this filial bond between them during the pre-trial conference[77] and trial. "[A]dmission in open court of relationship has been held to be sufficient and, hence, conclusive to prove relationship with the victim."[78] Also, "AAA's" birth certificate was submitted as proof of her age. This document suffices as competent evidence of her age.[79] | |||||
|
2013-07-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The Court will not disturb the finding of the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that AAA's testimony deserves full faith and credence. In resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony. The settled rule is that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times, even finality. Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility. Findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[42] No such facts or circumstances exist in the present case. | |||||
|
2012-11-14 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 266-B of the RPC, the penalty for rape by sexual assault is prision mayor. However, the penalty is increased to reclusion temporal "if the rape is committed by any of the 10 aggravating/qualifying circumstances mentioned in this article". The Information alleged the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority. It was alleged that appellant is the father of "AAA". During the pre-trial conference, the parties stipulated that "AAA" is the daughter of appellant.[32] During trial, appellant admitted his filial bond with "AAA".[33] "[A]dmission in open court of relationship has been held to be sufficient and, hence, conclusive to prove relationship with the victim."[34] | |||||
|
2011-10-19 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The settled rule is that the trial court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, unless there appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.[52] Since the trial judge had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture and tone of voice of the complaining witnesses while testifying, it was truly competent and in the best position to assess whether the witness was telling the truth.[53] | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the defense of denial.[17]Accused-appellant was positively and categorically identified by the witnesses. They have no reason to perjure and accused-appellant was unable to prove that the prosecution witnesses were moved by any consideration other than to see that justice is done. Thus, the presumption that their testimonies were not moved by any ill will and bias stands, and, therefore, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[18] | |||||
|
2010-09-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In reviewing rape cases we are guided by the following well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility: it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[15] | |||||
|
2010-02-01 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is hornbook doctrine that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect. Having seen and heard the witnesses and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court is deemed to have been in a better position to weigh the evidence.[15] Thus, the trial court's evaluation shall be binding on the appellate court unless it is shown that certain facts of substance and value have been plainly overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied.[16] None of the exceptions is present in this case. | |||||