This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-06-30 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Time and again, the Court has emphasized that a woman's conduct immediately after the alleged assault is of critical value in gauging the truth of her accusations.[43] One important test is that it must coincide with logic and experience.[44] If indeed she was raped, AAA's utter failure not only to resist Rondina's advances but also to shout for help before, during or after the rape are truly baffling, and defy the ordinary standards of human behavior. A stranger suddenly materialized who obviously had unholy intentions, he quickly placed himself on top of her and raped her, yet AAA did not shout for help, knowing that the neighbors were just nearby. Incomprehensibly, too, after the dastardly rape, which went on for a "long time," AAA stayed half naked and supine, and with her face looking up she carried on a hushed conversation with her supposed attacker, who just sat still beside her, also half-naked like her. While a rape victim is not expected to resist until death, it is contrary to human experience that AAA did not even make an outcry or put up a resistance,[45] particularly since throughout her ordeal, her hands were free of restraint, and Rondina's knife lay by her side most of the time, if indeed he had a knife. | |||||
|
2011-10-19 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Anent the first assigned error, Butiong contends that the State did not establish rape because there was no evidence showing the exact date when the rape occurred. Under the second assigned error, he disputes the RTC's conclusion that AAA was a mental retardate by focusing on the inconclusiveness of the findings of psychologist de Guzman brought about by her failure to ascertain AAA's personal history and by her computing AAA's mental age upon inaccurate and unverified information. He notes that two other physicians who had examined AAA, one from the NBI and the other from the National Center for Mental Health, were not presented as witnesses. He insists on his innocence, and emphasizes the testimony of Dr. Dayan on the unreliability of the tests administered on AAA. He maintains that the unreliability of the tests administered on AAA for determining the presence of mental retardation should be appreciated in his favor in accordance with People v. Cartuano, Jr.,[17] which required that a diagnosis of mental retardation should be made after a thorough evaluation based on history, and physical and laboratory examinations by a clinician. Lastly, he posits that the State did not establish the elements of rape, considering that a mental retardate qualified neither as a "woman deprived of reason" nor as "a woman under twelve years of age" as provided under Article 266-A par. 1(b) nor of par. 1(d) of the Revised Penal Code. | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On the second issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty upon him since the prosecution failed to establish the victim's mental retardation. He stresses that it was error for the trial court to consider Dr. Vergara's testimony regarding the victim's mental condition because Dr. Vergara is not an expert in either psychiatry or psychology. He likewise points out that the basis for her evaluation leaves much to be desired as she relied mainly on the statements made by the victim's mother during the medical examination. He relies on our ruling in People v. Cartuano, Jr., [39] that a competent clinical evaluation is necessary where a diagnosis of mental retardation can be made. | |||||