This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2004-04-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We note that the trial court sentenced appellant to death because private complainant was a minor. The lower court, however, erred on this score. The fact that the victim in this case was only ten years old when the rape occurred does not by itself warrant the penalty of death. Article 266-B, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997," provides that the death penalty shall be imposed only when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.[31] In this case, although the minority of the victim was alleged and proven, such allegation and proof of the minority of the victim, without any allegation and proof of her relationship to the appellant, would not qualify rape as a capital crime. Moreover, as previously held, minority of the offended party, by itself, is not an aggravating circumstance that can increase the penalty to death.[32] | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case. Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, it was in a better position to decide the question of credibility.[8] | |||||
|
2003-04-22 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the vacillation of a rape victim in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair her credibility as a witness.[11] Delay in reporting the crime neither diminishes her credibility nor undermines her charges, particularly when the delay can be attributed to a pattern of fear instilled by the threats of one who exercises moral ascendancy over her.[12] | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The issue of whether or not appellant was identified by the prosecution eyewitnesses as the perpetrator of the crime is a question of credibility. It is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case. Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial judge was in a better position to determine their credibility.[11] | |||||
|
2003-02-11 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Likewise, the award of exemplary damages is justified. The circumstance of use of a deadly weapon was duly alleged in the information and proven at the trial. In People v. Edem,[14] we awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in a case of rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon. | |||||
|
2002-10-28 |
Mendoza, J. |
||||
| desires of the rapist.[14] In such cases, physical resistance need not be established since intimidation is exercised over the victim and the latter submits herself against her will to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety.[15] Thus, if resistance would nevertheless be futile because of intimidation, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault so as to make the victim's submission to the sexual act voluntary.[16] However, none of these circumstances is present in this case. Complainant was 36 years old at the time the alleged rape took place. She weighed 53 kilograms and was about five feet tall.[17] She is a housewife with five children. It is thus incredible | |||||
|
2002-10-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| offered a notable degree of resistance by pushing away and even slapping one of her tormentors.[45] She tried to shout because of the pain of the forcible penile entry, she said, but her mouth was covered.[46] These circumstances show that the victim was physically forced and intimidated into granting her sexual favors to appellant and his co-accused. That she could not offer a more tenacious fight to protect her maidenhood could be explained by the fact that she was tipsy and nauseated. But there was resistance, nonetheless. And such resistance to sexual advances negates consent. The fact that complainant failed to resist the forcible sexual advances of appellant and his companions does not mean that the rapes did not take place. As well said, it is not necessary that she should have resisted unto death.[47] Moreover, the medico-legal evidence presented by the prosecution supports complainant's claim that appellant and his confederates forcibly subjected her to penile invasion. Dr. Araceli M. Callao testified that her examination of the victim disclosed not only a bluish | |||||
|
2002-09-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case. Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court was in a better position to decide the question of credibility.[10] A thorough review of the records of the instant case shows that there is no reason to deviate from the trial court's evaluation and assessment of the credibility of witnesses. The trial court did not err in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses that | |||||