This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2003-07-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| To prove her age, the prosecution adduced in evidence what purported to be Ailyn Servano's certificate of live birth.[24] However, this document was correctly disregarded by the trial court because, aside from its belated registration,[25] there were irregularities attendant to its preparation, such as the erroneous dates and names of certain persons appearing thereon. While complainant testified that she was born on January 7, 1986,[26] the date of birth on her birth certificate is August 4, 1986. Also, the middle initial of the private complainant herself was written erroneously as "F" instead of "C". The name of the appellant under the space for "informant" was merely superimposed on what appeared to be that of another person. | |||||
|
2003-07-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Appellant's obvious pretense cannot prevail over the testimony of private complainant which the trial court found to be "categorical, straightforward, detailed and consistent." When the offended party is a young and immature girl, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, not only because of their relative vulnerability but also because of the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial if the matter about which they testified were not true.[7] More so when, as here, the private complainant was appellant's own daughter. Generally, no young woman will accuse her own father of so grave a crime as rape unless she has truly been aggrieved.[8] Besides, we note that private complainant could not hold back her emotions and cried profusely at a certain point during the trial.[9] It is a matter of judicial cognizance that the spontaneous crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence that speaks well of her credibility.[10] | |||||
|
2003-04-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Appellant, in the main, argues that he could not be convicted for rape as the prosecution fatally erred in not proving his moral ascendancy over the complainant, hence failing to prove the presence of intimidation. Appellant heavily relies on the case of People v. Alberto Chua,[36] where we said:The mere fact that appellant is her father and therefore exercises moral ascendancy over his daughter cannot ipso facto lead this Court to conclude that there was intimidation. There must be some evidence of the intimidation employed on the victim as to indubitably show how vitiated the victim's consent was to the violation of her womanhood. | |||||
|
2003-02-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| x x x (1) conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea and the accused's full comprehension of the consequences thereof; (2) require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and (3) ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. x x x[20] | |||||
|
2003-01-16 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| On his lone assignment of error, appellant claims that the trial court erred in convicting him on the sole basis that the appellant had moral ascendancy over the victim as they were living under the same roof. Citing the case of People vs. Chua,[10] appellant argues that the prosecution should have presented evidence to show that appellant intimidated the victim into giving in to his sexual advances. Appellant thus insists that the sexual relation between him and his daughter was consensual. | |||||
|
2002-07-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person." In the cases at bar, the twenty-five (25) Informations charged accused-appellant with rape committed by "force, threats and intimidation" under paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (a) of R.A. No. 8353, i.e., Article 266-A (1) (a). In fine, carnal knowledge of the victim was made by force, threat, or intimidation. The traditional concept of rape is that carnal knowledge is gained against or without the consent of the victim.[20] If the rape is made by force, violence or intimidation, it is self-evident that it was made against or without the victim's consent. To | |||||
|
2002-06-05 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The RTC erred in stating that appellant had exercised moral ascendancy over complainant. This was not proven during the trial. Neither do the records show that he exercised moral ascendancy over her. He is in fact not much older than her brothers. It was not shown whether he was her benefactor -- a source of financial support -- or whether he exercised discipline over her. In other words, there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt that it was his moral ascendancy that prevented her from putting up a resistance.[21] Presumptions of moral ascendancy cannot and should not prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. | |||||
|
2002-03-12 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he is charged and fully explain to him the elements of the crime which is the basis of his indictment. Failure of the court to do so would constitute a violation of his fundamental right to be informed of the precise nature of the accusation against him and a denial of his right to due process.[15] | |||||