This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2005-09-30 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Even in criminal cases, a person may be convicted of a different offense than the offense he is charged with if the latter offense necessarily includes the elements of the lesser offense established by the evidence.[25] There is no reason why the same principle should not apply in administrative cases. Criminal cases operate under more stringent rules than administrative proceedings. The right of an accused to due process is even more closely guarded in a criminal case. | |||||
|
2003-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant Besmonte's bid for exoneration on the theory of doubtful identification, in our view, is an exercise in futility. The absence of illumination in the place of the commission of the crime does not detract from the positive identification by Melanie of Besmonte as her ravisher. Although visibility is an important factor in the identification of a felon, its relative significance depends largely on the attending circumstances and the discretion of the trial court. [54] We have held that the sense of smell, in the right circumstances, might be a reliable mode of identification, but it could also prove to be tenuous if it were the sole source of identification under circumstances that leave much room for other probabilities to contend with.[55] In the case against Besmonte, there is not much room to doubt the positive identification on account of the victim's olfactory faculties. | |||||
|
2002-11-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| P50,000.00. In addition, she is also entitled to the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages without need of proof, and another P25,000.00[20] as exemplary damages for each count of rape to set an example for the public good. Similarly, upon a finding of guilt of the accused for acts of lasciviousness, the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages may be further awarded to the victim.[21] | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution and (3) the evidence of the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[20] In other words, the credibility of the private complainant is determinative of the outcome of these cases for rape. Her consistency on material points, or lack of it, that can sustain or negate conviction, becomes the single most important matter in inquiry.[21] After a thorough review, we find that the testimony of private complainant, Jona Grajo, sufficiently established all the elements of rape committed under Article 266-A, paragraph (1) (a) of the Revised Penal Code, namely: a) that the offender, who must be a man, had carnal | |||||