This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-06-14 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Consequently, the case of the prosecution has been reduced to nothing but mere suspicions and speculations. It is hornbook doctrine that suspicions and speculations can never be the basis of conviction in a criminal case.[85] Courts must ensure that the conviction of the accused rests firmly on sufficient and competent evidence, and not the results of passion and prejudice.[86] If the alleged inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two (2) or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused, and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence is not adequate to support conviction.[87] The court must acquit the accused because the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is therefore insufficient to support a judgment of conviction.[88] Conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty of the guilt of the accused.[89] The overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.[90] It is thus apropos to repeat the doctrine that an accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt the prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to discharge its burden. Accordingly, we have to acquit. | |||||
|
2001-11-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| First. To begin with, it is settled that the accused may be convicted on the sole testimony of the victim in a rape case, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[14] In this case, both complainant and her brother Ariel testified against their uncle, herein accused-appellant. Their testimonies are confirmed by the results of the medical examination of complainant. | |||||
|
2001-10-12 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| While the evidence on record is bereft of proof of physical resistance on Editha's part, physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim yields to the bestial desires of the rapist because of fear.[26] That the accused had carnal knowledge of Editha by intimidating her and making her afraid that she would suffer greater harm if she did not submit to the accused in each of the three rape incidents is clear from the above-quoted testimony. Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule.[27] Editha even testified that on the second and third rape instances, the accused carried a bolo with him. We have ruled in several rape cases that threatening the victim with bodily injury while holding a bolo constitutes intimidation sufficient to have a woman submit to the lustful desires of the rapist.[28] | |||||
|
2001-04-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| By the way, why did you not complain before to the authority regarding the abuses committed by your father? A I was afraid of my father because he told me that he will kill me and my brothers, ma'am.[7] Moreover, it has been ruled that in cases of incestuous rape, the accused-appellant's moral ascendancy over the victim takes the place of violence and intimidation.[8] Considering the masculine strength of accused-appellant, whether armed or not, the victim obviously knew that resistance would be futile. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to the rapist because of fear. Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule.[9] Whether the victim resisted the habitual assault on her honor is immaterial for the law does not impose upon the rape victim the burden of proving resistance.[10] | |||||