This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-06-08 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| Significantly, Irene remained inside appellant's barracks for about four hours from 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. It is simply incredible that the appellant would take his sweet time in raping Irene, knowing that her father was just three meters away. We ask again here the question we posed in People v. Relorcasa:[26] "Does a rapist have the luxury of time unless there is an active cooperation on the part of the victim?" | |||||
|
2003-10-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Indeed, the defense has no duty to justify why we should take the side of such probable explanations as would exculpate appellant, much less are we obliged to find more severe culpability under otherwise less grave circumstances; rather, it is the business of the prosecution to prove why the incriminatory interpretation of the evidence should be preferable.v.The prosecution has the onus probandi of establishing the precise degree of culpability of the appellant; it must demonstrate in sufficient detail the manner by which the crime was perpetrated. Where the evidence gives rise to two possibilities, one consistent with the innocence and the other indicative of the guilt of the accused, that which favors the accused should be properly considered.[36] Thus, absent any compelling reason to agree with the prosecution's assessment of the evidence, we cannot affirm the conviction in Crim. Case No. 6636-G. | |||||