This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2013-09-02 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Clearly, appellant's knowledge of the mental disability of "AAA" at the time of the commission of the crime of rape was properly alleged in the Amended Information. "Knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime of rape qualifies the crime and makes it punishable by death x x x."[39] "When rape is committed by an assailant who has knowledge of the victim's mental retardation, the penalty is increased to death."[40] "Mental retardation is a chronic condition present from birth or early childhood and characterized by impaired intellectual functioning measured by standardized tests."[41] Intellectual or mental disability "is a term synonymous with and is now preferred over the older term, mental retardation."[42] | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As to penalty. Under Article 266-B[66] in relation to Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, simple rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua. However, when rape is committed by an assailant who has knowledge of the victim's mental retardation, the penalty is increased to death. But this circumstance must be alleged in the information being a qualifying circumstance which increases the penalty to death and changes the nature of the offense from simple to qualified rape.[67] In the case at bench, while appellant categorically admitted that he knew AAA to be suffering from mental abnormalities, the prosecution failed to allege this fact in the information. As such, even if it was proved, it cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. Thus, appellant's conviction is only for simple rape for which he should be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2012-09-11 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| To corroborate appellant Wenceslao's testimony, the defense presented Armida, Jeffrey and Luzviminda, who are appellant Wenceslao's wife, nephew and niece, respectively. This Court, however, cannot give credence to the testimonies of these defense witnesses. Being appellant Wenceslao's relatives, their testimonies are rendered suspect because the former's relationship to them makes it likely that they would freely perjure themselves for his sake. The defense of alibi may not prosper if it is established mainly by the appellant himself and his relatives, and not by credible persons.[70] This Court further quote with conformity the observation made by the trial court, viz: FURTHER, the testimonies of the above-named witnesses for [herein appellant Wenceslao] were shattered by the testimony of [Rudy], another witness for [appellant Wenceslao], who categorically told the Court that during the time he and his companions Jacob Pepito and a certain Romy were in the house of [appellant Wenceslao] in the afternoon of 5 June 2001, there was no unusual incident that took place, as well as no unusual incident that happened when they left the house of [appellant Wenceslao] at about 2:45 in the afternoon. | |||||
|
2012-08-22 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Force in rape cases is defined as "power, violence or constraint exerted upon or against a person."[60] In People v. Maceda,[61] cited by the CA, the court explained the standards for evaluating the force employed in rape: x x x.[I]t is not necessary that the force and intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. x x x. | |||||
|
2009-10-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Even a mental retardate or feeble-minded person qualifies as a competent witness if she can perceive and, perceiving, can make known her perception to others. In People v. Maceda,[48] we held that the mental unsoundness of the witness at the time of the event testified to affects only her credibility. As long as the witness can convey ideas by words or signs and gives sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions propounded, she is a competent witness even if she is a mental retardate. In People v. Salomon,[49] this Court held that "[a] mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a witness. As in the case of other witnesses, acceptance of one's testimony depends on its nature and credibility." In People v. Gerones,[50] the Court allowed the victim to testify, even if she had the mental age of a 9 or 10-year old. Likewise, in People v. Antonio,[51] the Court allowed the testimony of a 24-year old woman who had the mental age of a seven-year old child, because the Court was convinced that "she was capable of perceiving and making her perception known." | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's main defense is alibi, which is concededly the weakest defense.[8] Courts reject alibi when there are credible eyewitnesses to the crime who can positively identify the accused.[9] Courts may give credence to alibi only if there are credible eyewitnesses who can corroborate the alibi of the accused. Courts do not give credence to alibi if the corroboration comes from close relatives of the accused, and not from credible and disinterested persons.[10] | |||||
|
2002-09-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| of appellant. The defense of alibi will not prosper if it is established mainly by the accused himself and his relatives, and not by credible and disinterested persons.[41] For the July 16, 1996 rape, the case of the defense relied on the testimony of Benito, Jr., the nephew of appellant. Benito Jr., testified that appellant asked him and his mother to sleep in the house of appellant because appellant and his family were stricken with chicken | |||||
|
2001-12-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Q At the time you examined Mila Lubrico will you say in your own opinion that she was suffering from mental disturbance. A Yes, sir.[4] Thus, Mila could not have consented to engage in sexual intercourse with accused-appellant.[5] Her condition falls under the definition of a person "deprived of reason." These include those suffering from mental abnormality or deficiency; or some form of mental retardation; the feeble minded but coherent; or even those suffering from mental abnormality or deficiency of reason.[6] | |||||
|
2001-10-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is an elementary rule that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. And the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted so as to materially affect the disposition of the case.[8] | |||||