This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-06-08 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| Neither was intimidation employed against her. Even if she was pulled down to the bed, she was not threatened with bodily or physical harm by a knife, bolo, or any object or instrument that the appellant could have employed so as "to create a real apprehension of dangerous consequences or serious bodily harm." Well-settled is the rule that where the victim is threatened with bodily injury, as when the rapist is armed with a deadly weapon, such as a pistol, knife, ice pick or bolo, such constitutes intimidation sufficient to bring the victim to submission to the lustful desires of the rapist.[16] | |||||
|
2004-02-13 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant ejaculated twice during the time that he consummated the rape. Appellant did not withdraw his penis to insert it again into the vagina or to "touch" the labia majora or the labia minora when he ejaculated the second time. It is not the number of times that appellant ejaculated but the penetration or "touching" that determines the consummation of the sexual act.[36] Thus, appellant committed only one count of rape. | |||||
|
2004-02-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Rape is committed when the accused has carnal knowledge of the victim by force or intimidation and without consent.[20] Based on the records, the prosecution sufficiently established that appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim. If the victim's testimony meets the test of credibility, that is sufficient to convict the accused.[21] When a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed.[22] Here, Mysan's testimony, particularly as regards appellant's identity, was direct, clear, and positive. We quote the transcript of stenographic notes: Q At that time 10:30 o'clock in the evening, what were you then doing in your house? A I was sleeping, sir. Q What happened when you were sleeping, if you know? A … Q Were you awakened? A Yes, sir. Q Why were you awakened? A Because I saw him. Q Whom did you see? A Mr. Alberto Luceriano, sir. Q Were you able to see him when it was night time? A There was a lamp in my room, sir. Q What kind of lamp was in your room? A Lamp fueled by gaas or kerosene, placed in an empty bottle. x x x Q Now, you said you saw Alberto Luceriano, what was he doing when you saw him? A I saw him inside my room. PROS. RONQUILLO: May we make it of record that the witness is crying. COURT: That fact that the complainant is crying and could not answer is noted in the record of the case. PROS. RONQUILLO: May we proceed, Your Honor. COURT: Proceed. PROS. RONQUILLO: Q When you saw Alberto Luceriano, was he standing up, kneeling or sitting, or in what position? A He was kneeling. Q How far was he from you? A He is very near to me. Q And what did he do when he was near you? A He covered my mouth. Q And how did he cover your mouth? A By his two hands. Q After that, what did he do? A He pointed his knife to me. Q And after that what did he do? A He told me not to relay this matter. (magsusumbong) Q After that, what else did he do? A He undressed himself; he told me to undress my self. Q What else did he do after he undressed you? A He placed his body on top of my body. Q While Alberto Luceriano was doing on this things to you, what were you doing? A I cried. Q Aside from crying, did you do anything else? A None, sir. Q Do you like what Alberto Luceriano did to you? A No, sir. Q Why did you not shout and ask for help? A Because he will kill me. Q After he placed himself on top of you, what else did Alberto Luceriano do? A He is doing the up and down action, sir. Q Do you know why he was doing that? A … May we ask another question. Q You said that Alberto Luceriano undressed himself, did he undress all his clothings? A No, only his shirts and brief. Q When you said undressed you, did he remove all your clothings or only some of your clothes? A All my clothes, sir. Q After removing all your clothes, what else did he do? A There was pain. Q Where did you feel pain? A My vagina. Q Why do you feel pain in your private part? A Because he forced his penis to enter. Q Did he succeed in making his penis to enter? A Yes, sir. Q How long did it take Alberto Luceriano do the up and down movement? For short time or long time? A So long, sir. Q On the time he was doing that, what did you feel? A Pain. Q When you said his penis was able to enter your private part, when he was doing the up and down movement, what did you feel about? A Pain, sir. Q Before he started doing the up and down movement, did you feel or notice anything in your private part? A Yes, sir. Q What did you feel? A Something slippery. Q After Alberto Luceriano stop doing the up and down movement, what did he do? A He kissed me, sir. Q Where? A On my face, sir. Q How many times? A I could not count. Q How about on the other part of your body, did he kiss you? A No, sir. Q After kissing you, what else did he do? A None, sir. Q Did he leave the room? A Yes, sir. Q Did he put on his dress after leaving the room? A Yes, sir. Q If Alberto Luceriano is in the courtroom, can you pinpoint to him? A Yes, sir. (And witness pointed to a person inside the courtroom and when asked his name said he is Alberto Luceriano.) Q How come you know Alberto Luceriano? A I have heard his voice.[23] An appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision on the basis of grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors.[24] Thus, although not raised as an issue by appellant, we deem it prudent to discuss appellant's use of force or intimidation in consummating his bestial act. Mysan testified that appellant "pointed a knife at her side." There was, therefore, the essence of force and intimidation sufficient to engender fear in Mysan's mind that she would be killed if she did not yield to appellant's bestial desire.[25] The act of holding a knife by itself is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring her into submission.[26] | |||||
|
2003-09-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant claims that the testimonies of the victim's parents are biased. However, given the close kinship of the parties, such bias is but natural and understandable. It does not disqualify parents from being witnesses. The weight and value of their testimonies are reckoned in the light of parental instinct to protect their young. The parents' testimonies are merely corroborative and not indispensable for appellant's conviction. The testimony of the victim alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime.[42] Moreover a disinterested witness, Purok Chairman Joselito Batulan, confirmed the Estardos' testimonies that appellant was in the locus criminis on September 17, 1999, the day of the alleged offense.[43] | |||||