This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Finally, the Court notes that although the prosecution filed only a single Information, it, however, actually charged the accused of several rapes. As a general rule, a complaint or information must charge only one offense, otherwise, the same is defective.[76] The rationale behind this rule prohibiting duplicitous complaints or informations is to give the accused the necessary knowledge of the charge against him and enable him to sufficiently prepare for his defense. The State should not heap upon the accused two or more charges which might confuse him in his defense.[77] Non-compliance with this rule is a ground[78] for quashing the duplicitous complaint or information under Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the accused may raise the same in a motion to quash before he enters his plea,[79] otherwise, the defect is deemed waived.[80] The accused herein, however, cannot avail of this defense simply because they did not file a motion to quash questioning the validity of the Information during their arraignment. Thus, they are deemed to have waived their right to question the same. Also, where the allegations of the acts imputed to the accused are merely different counts specifying the acts of perpetration of the same crime, as in the instant case, there is no duplicity to speak of.[81] There is likewise no violation of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against them because the Information, in fact, stated that they "took turns in having carnal knowledge against the will of AAA" on March 25, 2004.[82] Further, allegations made and the evidence presented to support the same reveal that AAA was indeed raped and defiled several times. Here, according to the accused themselves, after undressing AAA, Carampatana positioned himself in between her legs and had intercourse with her. On the other hand, Oporto admitted that he had sexual intercourse with AAA three times. When two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose upon him the proper penalty for each offense.[83] Carampatana, Oporto, and Alquizola can then be held liable for more than one crime of rape, or a total of four (4) counts in all, with conspiracy extant among the three of them during the commission of each of the four violations. Each of the accused shall thus be held liable for every act of rape committed by the other. But while Oporto himself testified that he inserted his sexual organ into AAA's mouth, the Court cannot convict him of rape through sexual assault therefor because the same was not included in the Information. This is, however, without prejudice to the filing of a case of rape through sexual assault as long as prescription has not yet set in. | |||||
|
2007-08-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Although the trial court disbelieved in part the testimony of Rogelio Cumla as regards the participation of Mercedes in the perpetration of the crime, it nevertheless did not err in giving credence to the rest of Rogelio's testimony. Settled is the rule that a witness' testimony may be believed in part and disbelieved in another part, depending upon the probabilities and improbabilities of the case.[4] | |||||
|
2007-03-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the case of People v. Lucena,[39] we held that:Modern trend in jurisprudence favors more flexibility when the testimony of a witness may be partly believed and partly disbelieved depending on the corroborative evidence presented at the trial. Thus, where the challenged testimony is sufficiently corroborated in its material points, or where the mistakes arise from innocent lapses and not from an apparent desire to pervert the truth, the rule may be relaxed. It is a rule that is neither absolute nor mandatory and binding upon the court, which may accept or reject portions of the witness' testimony based on its inherent credibility or on the corroborative evidence in the case. | |||||
|
2006-02-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Granting that Ricardo erred in claiming that Tommy used an ice pick in stabbing him and Roque, it is a settled rule that witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall.[69] Even if the offended party may have erred in some aspects of his testimony, the same does not necessarily impair his testimony nor corrode his credibility.[70] Where a part of the testimony of a witness runs counter to the medical evidence submitted, it is within the sound discretion of the court to determine which portions of the testimony to reject as false and which to consider worthy of belief.[71] In the case of People v. Lucena,[72] we held that:Modern trend in jurisprudence favors more flexibility when the testimony of a witness may be partly believed and partly disbelieved depending on the corroborative evidence presented at the trial. Thus, where the challenged testimony is sufficiently corroborated in its material points, or where the mistakes arise from innocent lapses and not from an apparent desire to pervert the truth, the rule may be relaxed. It is a rule that is neither absolute nor mandatory and binding upon the court, which may accept or reject portions of the witness' testimony based on its inherent credibility or on the corroborative evidence in the case.[73] (Emphasis supplied). | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, the findings of the trial court on matters of credibility are binding and conclusive on the appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[43] In the case at bar, the trial court gave more credence to the testimony of Julio over the combined testimonies of all the accused-appellants. | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| For evident premeditation to be appreciated, there must be proof, as clear as the evidence of the crime itself, of the following elements thereof, to wit: (1) the time the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequence of his act.[65] | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the crime is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon a resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[66] In this case, the records are bereft of any evidence of evident premeditation. There is no proof of the time when accused-appellants decided to commit the crime. Neither is there any showing of how accused-appellants planned the killings, nor of how much time elapsed before they executed their plan. Absent all these, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated. Hence, the crime committed is only homicide. | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| incidental matters do not impair the weight of their united testimony to the prominent facts.[20] In fact, slight contradictions even serve to strengthen the sincerity of a witness and prove that his testimony is not rehearsed. They are fail-safes against memorized perjury. We have said that even the most truthful witnesses can make mistakes but such innocent lapses do not necessarily affect their credibility.[21] Minor inconsistencies and contradictions among witnesses testifying on the same incident may be expected because different persons may have different impressions or recollections of the same incident. One may remember a detail more clearly than another. Witnesses may have | |||||