This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-03-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant noted a discrepancy on the dates provided in the documentary evidence presented by the prosecution. The alleged date of the last crime of attempted rape was committed on 21 November 2003. On the other hand, AAA underwent medical examination presumably after the attempted rape but the date indicated in the medical report was 3 November 2003. Indeed, there seems to be an error in specifying the dates. At any rate, errors or inconsistencies as to the exact time or date or day of the week when the rape was consummated do not impair the credibility of the complaining witness, for as long as there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant.[36] Moreover, the exact date is not an essential element of rape.[37] It bears no significance to the actual commission of the crime. | |||||
|
2004-07-07 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Thus, even if the victim's minority is alleged in the information, the prosecution must still prove clearly and adequately that the victim was under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the rape. There must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. Where there is no evidence at all of the minority age of the victim or where the evidence is weak, unreliable and insufficient, the Court is impelled not to impose the death penalty.[54] The failure of the prosecution to present the victim's birth certificate or similarly acceptable proof of her age as a minor bars the accused's conviction for rape in its qualified form.[55] | |||||
|
2001-12-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Nor is there sufficient evidence of complainant's age. The testimonies of complainant concerning her age and that of her father, herein accused-appellant, concerning this matter are insufficient. In People v. Tundag,[39] in which the complaints alleged that the victim was 13 years old at the time of the rapes, it was held that it was error for the trial court to take judicial notice of the victim's age even if the defense admitted the victim's minority. The Court emphasized that there must be independent proof, such as a birth certificate, of the age of the victim. In People v. San Agustin,[40] this Court held that the latter's minority had not been sufficiently established notwithstanding the appellant's admission that the victim was 13 years of age. Judicial notice of the victim's age may be taken if the victim is 10 years old or below,[41] but not where, as in this case, the victim is alleged to be 14 years old when she was raped. | |||||
|
2001-12-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As in most rape cases, the ultimate issue in this case is credibility. On this score, the findings and assessment of the trial court are binding on the appellate court considering that after a thorough review, no facts and circumstances were shown to have been overlooked or disregarded below which if considered would affect the outcome of the case.[15] Denial and alibi are inherently weak and unreliable defenses[16] which cannot overcome the positive identification of the accused by the victim herself.[17] Such negative declarations cannot prevail over the affirmative testimony of the victim,[18] especially where the victim harbored no ill motive against the accused.[19] | |||||
|
2001-11-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Q You did not recognize that somebody when he was raping you because it was dark in your store, is it not? A I recognized him when he went out of the door and his face was lighted, ma'm. Q What was the position of the accused when you saw him on the lighted part of that kitchen of yours? A He happened to face me, ma'm. Q Is it not Mrs. witness that there were many persons where your store is situated? A There were no persons because it was early morning, ma'm.[12] Equally, accused-appellant's defense of alibi, aside from being inherently weak,[13] cannot prosper, in the light of the evidence that the store where the victim was raped, on the one hand, and the store of accused-appellant's relative where he also stays, on the other hand, is just a meter apart. It was not, therefore, physically impossible for accused-appellant to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Moreover, alibi cannot prevail over accused-appellant's positive identification as the rapist.[14] The argument of the defense that the reason why accused-appellant was charged was because he was considered a "bad person" is too shallow an excuse. No ill motive can be attributed to the person who reported the rape to the police, just as no wrongful motive can be imputed on the victim in charging accused-appellant with a serious accusation. | |||||
|
2001-04-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant disclaims ravishing his own daughter. His bare denial, however, cannot withstand his positive identification by the victim as the person who forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions. Likewise, accused-appellant's invocation of alibi cannot prevail over his positive identification as the rapist by no less than the victim herself, who was not shown to have harbored any ill motive against the former.[11] Being inherently weak and unreliable,[12] accused-appellant's alibi must fail.[13] The victim's failure to immediately reveal his father's incestuous acts is not indicative of fabricated charges.[14] She was being sexually ravished since she was only eight years old. The fear of being killed was instilled in her innocent mind and young heart by her own father, who had the moral obligation to nurture her. Until she reached the age of fifteen, Michelle never told anyone that she was continuously being victimized sexually by accused-appellant. Only when she became pregnant was she compelled to speak out. Her unavoidably embarrassing situation impelled her to reveal the barbarous acts not only to his family but also to friends. | |||||