This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-11-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| By way of defense, appellant could only interpose alibi. The twin requirements for the defense of alibi to be plausible are: first, they must prove that they were nowhere in the vicinity of the crime at the time of its commission; they must prove that they were somewhere else instead; second, they must prove that it was highly impossible for them to be present at the crime scene at the time of its occurrence.[7] Where there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi will not hold water. [8] At the time of the commission of the crime, it is undisputed that appellant was only one hundred to two hundred meters away from the crime scene. He thus failed to prove the physical impossibility of his being present at the place where the crime was committed. Appellant's alibi therefore deserves no consideration at all. | |||||
|
2002-11-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| latest jurisprudence for rape not effectively qualified by any circumstance under which death penalty is authorized by the present amended law.[18] Moral damages is also awarded pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, without the necessity of additional pleading or proof other than the fact of rape. Moral damages is granted in recognition of the victim's injury as being inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the abhorrent crime of rape, especially where the rape victim is an innocent child whose life is forever tainted by a foul and traumatic experience.[19] In addition, accused-appellant is ordered to pay each of his victims P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, considering his relationship as father of the rape victims, Elgie and Lady.[20] | |||||