This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is true that an appeal in a criminal case like this one opens the record of the trial bare and open. Even so, the finding of facts by the trial court are still entitled to great respect especially when affirmed on appeal by the CA.[19] This great respect for such findings rests mainly on the trial court's direct and personal access to the witnesses while they testify in its presence, giving them the unique opportunity to observe their manner and decorum during intensive grilling by the counsel for the accused, and to see if the witnesses were fidgeting and prevaricating, or sincere and trustworthy. With both the RTC and the CA sharing the conviction on Carl's credibility, his capacity to perceive and his ability to communicate his perception, we cannot depart from their common conclusion. Moreover, according credence to Carl's testimony despite his tender age would not be unprecedented. In People v. Mendiola,[20] the Court considered a 6-year-old victim competent, and regarded her testimony against the accused credible. In Dulla v. Court of Appeals,[21] the testimony of the three-year-old victim was deemed acceptable. As such, Carl's testimony was entitled to full probative weight. | |||||
|
2015-02-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| On the 15 counts of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 of RA 7610, we find that the appellate court erred in the penalty imposed. If the victim is under 12 years of age, the imposable penalty under Article III, Section 5(b) of RA 7610,[29] is reclusion temporal in its medium period, the range of which is from 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[30] and in the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum term of the sentence to be imposed shall be taken from the medium period of the imposable penalty, that is reclusion temporal medium, which ranges from 15 years, 6 months and 20 days to 16 years, 5 months and 9 days.[31] The minimum term under the Indeterminate Sentence Law shall be taken from the penalty next lower to the prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal medium, that is reclusion temporal minimum, which ranges from 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. Thus, the penalty to be imposed for each of the 15 counts of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610 shall be 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 15 years, 6 months and 20 days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Furthermore, both the civil indemnity and moral damages should be increased to P20,000 and P30,000, respectively, and exemplary damages in the amount of P2,000 should be added, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.[32] | |||||
|
2012-06-18 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Meanwhile, on 22 September 2009, respondents filed before Branch 226 an Ex Parte Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession.[26] That Motion was granted by Branch 226 through a Resolution[27] issued on 10 November 2011. This Resolution then became the subject of a Petition for Certiorari[28] under Rule 65 filed by petitioners before the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 123164. | |||||
|
2004-05-20 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| To be sure, the victim's testimony was not flawless or perfect in all aspects. We must remember, however, that it was the narration of a minor who barely understood sex and sexuality.[24] Hence, in assessing her testimony, it would not be fair to apply the standards used for adults.[25] Indeed, she fully understood the defilement of her person, even if she was at a loss for the right words with which to describe the horrid details. It was for this reason that the prosecutor had to ask leading questions, which are allowed under Section 10 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.[26] | |||||
|
2003-06-27 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Article 336. Acts of lasciviousness Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article shall be punished by prision correccional. Nelson could be convicted of acts of lasciviousness because the latter is necessarily included in the crime of rape.[44] Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court states:Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and that proved or established by the evidence, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is charged, or of the offense charged included in that which is proved. The inconsistencies in the testimony of Irma pointed out by Nelson are inconsequential. Minor lapses in the memory of a rape victim can be expected. It is an understandable human frailty not to be able to recount with facility all the details of a dreadful and harrowing experience. [45] Thus, the failure of Irma to respond properly to some questions propounded to her does not put to naught her reliability and sincerity. | |||||
|
2001-02-19 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| Considering that the crime of acts of lasciviousness or abusos dishonestos is necessarily included in rape, the accused who is charged with latter crime may be convicted with the former.[79] | |||||
|
2000-10-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| lips; sucked her nipple; held her breast; kissed her sex organ; inserted his finger in her genitals; and kissed her feet. From the foregoing acts, the lewd design of petitioner is evident. Thus, although the information filed was for the crime of rape, accused-appellant can be convicted of acts of lasciviousness because the latter is necessarily included in rape.[16] Rule 120, Section 4 of the Rules of Court states: When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and that proved or established by the evidence, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved | |||||