This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-09-30 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Thus, the unfounded claim of evil motive on the part of the victim would not destroy the credibility reposed upon her by the RTC and the CA because, as the Court has held, a rape victim's testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses a close relative of having raped her, as in the case of a daughter against her father.[60] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| While the rule is that leading questions are not allowed in direct examination, Section 10 (c)[50] of Rule 132 allows leading questions to be asked of a witness who is a child of tender years, especially when said witness has difficulty giving an intelligible answer, as when the latter has not reached that level of education necessary to grasp the simple meaning of a question, moreso its underlying gravity.[51] This exception is now embodied in Section 20[52] of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, which took effect on December 15, 2000. Under Section 4 thereof, a "child witness" is any person who at the time of giving testimony is below the age of 18 years. | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the death penalty cannot be imposed upon the perpetrator, if his relationship with the victim is not duly alleged in the complaint or information.[29] "If the offender is merely a relation -- not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or common law spouse of the mother of the victim -- the specific relationship must be alleged in the information, i.e., that he is `a relative by consanguinity or affinity [as the case may be] within the third civil degree.'"[30] Both minority and actual relationship must be alleged and proved; if not, a conviction for rape in its qualified form will be barred.[31] In the present case, while the minority of the victim was properly alleged in the Complaint, her relationship with appellant was not specifically stated therein. | |||||
|
2003-02-05 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As a rule, leading questions are not allowed. However, the rules provide for exceptions when the witness is a child of tender years[13] as it is usually difficult for such child to state facts without prompting or suggestion.[14] Leading questions are necessary to coax the truth out of their reluctant lips.[15] In the case at bar, the trial court was justified in allowing leading questions to Mayia as she was evidently young and unlettered, making the recall of events difficult, if not uncertain.[16] As explained in People v. Rodito Dagamos:[17] | |||||
|
2003-02-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Accused-appellant goes further to posit that rape could not have been committed in October 1995 in broad daylight, particularly in a farm where there were other people who were supposed to be at work.[31] Judicial notice, however, is taken of the fact, and it can be considered of public knowledge, that the scene of rape is not always or necessarily isolated or secluded,[32] as it can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks along the roadside, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants, in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping, and even in places which to many would appear unlikely and high-risk venues for its commission.[33] | |||||