This case has been cited 16 times or more.
|
2013-02-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The governing law as regards the prohibition to issue restraining orders and injunctions against government infrastructure projects is Republic Act No. 8975,[12] which modified Presidential Decree No. 1818, the law cited by the parties, upon its effectivity on November 26, 2000.[13] Section 9 of Republic Act No. 8975 provides: Section 9. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, including Presidential Decree Nos. 605, 1818 and Republic Act No. 7160, as amended, orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly. | |||||
|
2007-07-24 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioner faults Villanueva for her inconsistent statements regarding the profession of the assailant,[14] the address of the victim,[15] the time of the incident,[16] and the length of time that she has known the victim.[17] However, these alleged inconsistencies are trivial and bear no materiality to the commission of the crime of homicide of which petitioner was convicted. It must be noted that discrepancies should refer to significant facts which are crucial to the guilt or innocence of an accused. Thus, inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds for acquittal.[18] | |||||
|
2003-08-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| (d) The physical evidence failed to show with moral certainty that appellant sexually abused Venilda.[12] Appellant quibbles on impertinent matters. What is material is that the commission of rape by appellant against Venilda is proven beyond any doubt. Discrepancies should refer to significant facts that are crucial to the guilt or innocence of an accused. Inconsistencies and discrepancies in details, which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime, are not grounds for acquittal.[13] Nevertheless, we shall still discuss the matters appellant has raised. | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We agree with the position taken by the OSG. In our review of Wilma's entire testimony, we find her testimony consistent on the subject of the principal occurrence of the two rapes and the positive identification of her violator in both instances. Despite certain variances on details, we find that her testimony as a witness consistently refers to significant facts, which are crucial to the innocence or guilt of an accused.[19] A perfect description of the crime scene is not essential for it is not an element of the crime. The reference to the "other room" by complainant indeed meant the other half of the room divided by the katsa curtain. Her alleged contradictory statements pertain only to minutiae, not touching on the essentials of the crime. A minor inconsistency, if any existed, strengthens rather than diminishes the credibility of complainant as it erases suspicion of a contrived testimony.[20] The disputed point on whether her mother was home either in mid-October 1994 or on February 24, 1997, appears to us secondary. | |||||
|
2001-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We agree with the trial court that no evidentiary weight could be given to the self-serving declarations of appellant. His ratiocination that the rapes could not have been committed in a small house where many people were living deserves scant consideration. We have held time and again that rape does not occur only in seclusion[23] and can be committed in the unlikeliest of places.[24] Situs of rape has been inside a house where there were other occupants;[25] in a room adjacent to where the victim's family was sleeping;[26] or even in a room which the victim shared with the sisters of the accused.[27] Among couples with big families who live in cramped quarters, the presence of other members of the family is not necessarily a deterrent to the commission of rape.[28] It is not impossible for the rape to take place inside a small house with no partition and with five occupants therein, including the accused and the victim.[29] Lust is no respecter of time and place.[30] The scenario illustrated by private complainants wherein they were raped inside their room by their own father is therefore not impossible nor incredible. It may seem improbable but as we held in one case: x x x | |||||
|
2001-04-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Her consistent testimony despite intense and lengthy interrogation[33] belies accused-appellant's claim that she was telling a tale culled from pornographic magazines or movies. Faced with complainant's testimony, accused-appellant could only offer the defense of denial. It is well-settled that denial cannot prevail over the positive identification and categorical testimony of complainant. The rule is that between the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserves more credence.[34]That is why accused-appellant had to summon to his aid an alleged affidavit of desistance (Exh. 3) of complainant and her mother. But how could this bind complainant and her mother or prove anything when the so-called affidavit is unsigned? | |||||
|
2001-03-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A witness is not expected to remember with perfect recollection every minute detail of her harrowing experience. A minor mistake as to the exact time of the commission of the rape is immaterial and cannot discredit the testimony of a witness.[32] We have repeatedly held that the exact date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime. What is decisive in a rape charge is that the commission of the rape by accused-appellant against complainant has been sufficiently proven. Inconsistencies and discrepancies as to minor matters which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime cannot be considered grounds for acquittal. Thus, accused-appellant can be validly convicted under the information in Criminal Case No. 96-0079 alleging that he committed rape on September 8, 1995 even if it appears that the actual date is September 9, 1995.[33] | |||||
|
2001-03-26 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| These contentions have no basis. For one, Juvelyn did not really say the rape lasted from 1:00 to 5:00, but that she was kept in the grassy area outside for that length of time. Also, Juvelyn could have been mistaken as to the length of time she was kept by accused-appellant. She was only 12 years of age at the time of the incident and her harrowing experience, though it lasted for just a few minutes, could very well have been an eternity. At all events, the alleged discrepancies and inconsistencies in Juvelyn's testimony are inconsequential, given her youth and inexperience. They tend to buttress, rather than weaken, her credibility, and indicate that her testimony was not contrived.[43] Discrepancies should refer to significant facts which are crucial to the guilt or innocence of an accused.[44] In the main, the testimony of Juvelyn is consistent, as shown by the following portion of her testimony under cross-examination by defense counsel: COURT: Q When you arrived in the grassy area, what did accused Montejo do to you? A He molested me. | |||||
|
2001-02-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As to Jesus Mendoza alias Tootsie, Mary Joy claims that she does not know Jesus Mendoza although her mother declared that Mary Joy knew "Tootsie Mendoza." It is apparent that Mary Joy knew of a Tootsie Mendoza, but not a "Jesus Mendoza." So, also, Mary Joy's alleged inconsistent testimony as to whether her mother was in the market or asleep in the house when she was raped is readily explicable or reconcilable. Mary Joy testified that the first time Lamberto inserted his finger on her sexual organ, her mother was in the market and when appellant finally succeeded in inserting his sexual organ into Mary Joy's, nobody was at home except her other brothers who were asleep. Evidently, in both instances, Mary Joy's mother was not in the house.[71] Inconsistencies on minor or inconsequential matters do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence as a whole, nor detract from the witnesses' testimony. On the contrary, they strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of the prosecution witnesses because they erase the suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[72] A rape victim cannot be expected to keep an accurate account of her traumatic experience. Discrepancies could be caused by the natural fickleness of human memory.[73] | |||||
|
2001-02-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Private complainant's failure to put up further resistance against ravishment after she was boxed into submission should not be taken against her. First, note that the victim is a wisp of a girl standing only 144.5 centimeters (4'10") tall, weighing only 48.5 kilograms (106.7 lbs.).[30] She could not be expected to successfully resist a determined sexual assault by a strong and heavy man. Second, note also that a rape victim is not required to resist a penile invasion to the point of injury or death. In fact, the law does not even impose a burden of proving resistance on the part of the rape victim.[31] Third, recall that the victim had grown up knowing no father except the appellant. Even during the proceedings below, she continuously referred to him as her "Papa." Evidently, she recognized his authority and ascendancy over her. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, in a rape committed by a father or a stepfather against his daughter or stepdaughter, the former's moral ascendancy and influence prevails and can, in fact, substitute for violence or intimidation.[32] In these cases, what little will to resist was left in the victim after having been boxed was clearly eroded by the ascendancy and influence appellant exerted over her. Where resistance would be futile because of intimidation, then offering none at all does not mean consent to the phallic intrusion so as to make the victim's participation in the sexual act voluntary.[33] | |||||
|
2000-11-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the medical finding of the absence of bruises and hematoma all the more confirms the fact that the rape happened when Eufemia was asleep and was not in a position to make an outcry or even put up a token resistance to prevent the sexual assault upon her. For that matter, the lack or even absence of resistance is not necessary because the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.[26] Moreover, the medical finding of the absence of spermatozoa does not negate rape.[27] The testimony of Eufemia was in fact supported by the testimonies of defense witnesses Esperanza Ramos, mother of accused-appellant, and Mary Jane Ramos-Strong, his sister. Their testimonies established the fact that they saw accused-appellant and Eufemia lying side by side each other with their clothes on and that both were covered by a blanket. Even accused-appellant admitted that he was sleeping on Mary Jane's bed but denied raping Eufemia as he was surprised to see her lying beside him. Accused-appellant thus concluded that what probably transpired between him and Eufemia was voluntary. To these averments, we reiterate our finding that Eufemia was raped while she was asleep. | |||||
|
2000-10-18 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| incident, she was outraged.[26] Imelda testified on rebuttal that she lost her love and affection for accused-appellant after he defiled her.[27] To reiterate, we find the testimony of Imelda credible. She had no motive to testify falsely against her own father.[28] On the other hand, she was aware that a prosecution for rape would inevitably expose her to public scrutiny. As we have said many times, no woman would want to go through the humiliation of a trial unless she has actually been so brutalized that she desires justice for her suffering.[29] It takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a story which could cause the life of her own father and drag the rest of the family, including herself, to a lifetime of shame.[30] Imelda's mother would not allow her child to be exposed to public trial, if the charges she makes are not true.[31] When asked how she felt upon learning that it was her husband who molested her daughter Imelda, Beverly testified that she was furious.[32] Neither can we detect any ill motive on the part of Abad in accompanying Imelda for her medical examination, taking custody over her after the rape incident, and supporting her throughout the trial of the case and even testifying for the prosecution. Nor can | |||||
|
2000-07-24 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| available.[26] Accused-appellants point out that Adelina contradicted herself several times regarding the question of when she first met Antonio. At one time, she testified that she met Antonio for the first time at the hotel.[27] Then another time, she stated that the | |||||
|
2000-07-24 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| disregard Adelina's testimony on this basis will result in injustice. Hae nugae seria ducent in mala. Consideration of these trifles will lead to serious mischief.[29] For a discrepancy in testimony to acquit, such must refer to significant facts crucial to the guilt or innocence of accused-appellants. Inconsistencies irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds to reverse the conviction.[30] True, Adelina waited six (6) months before she reported the crime to the police. However, this will not discredit her. It is not uncommon for a girl of tender age to be intimidated into silence by the mildest threat on her life.[31] | |||||
|
2000-03-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It is true that the supposed dates of the two rape incidents were not alleged in the information. But, as held in People v. Dimapilis,[18] under Rule 110, §§6 and 11 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, an information is sufficient as long as it states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constituting the same, since in rape cases, the time of commission of the crime is not "a material ingredient of the offense." It is thus sufficient if it is alleged that the crime took place "as near to the actual date at which the offense(s) are committed as the information or complaint will permit." We also ruled that in rape cases, victims of rape hardly retain in their memories the dates, number of times and manner they were violated. In the same vein, to be material, discrepancies in the testimony of the victim should refer to significant facts which are determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused, not to mere details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime, such as the exact time of its commission in cases of rape, and are not grounds for acquittal.[19] Moreover, accused-appellant entered his plea during arraignment without objecting to the sufficiency of the information. He thus waived objection on this ground, as provided in Rule 117, §8. | |||||
|
2000-03-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Since the rape in this case is qualified by circumstances which warrant the imposition of the death penalty, the complainant should be indemnified P75,000.00 for the rape. [35] In addition, P50,000.00 in moral damages should be awarded even without proof for it is assumed that the private complainant has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award. [36] | |||||