This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-10-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The intent to commit rape should not easily be inferred against the petitioner, even from his own declaration of it, if any, unless he committed overt acts directly leading to rape. A good illustration of this can be seen in People v. Bugarin,[34] where the accused was charged with attempted rape through an information alleging that he, by means of force and intimidation, "did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commence the commission of the crime of Rape directly by overt acts, by then and there kissing the nipples and the vagina of the undersigned [complainant], a minor, and about to lay on top of her, all against her will, however, [he] did not perform all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of Rape by reason of some causes other than his own spontaneous desistance, that is, undersigned complainant push[ed] him away." The accused was held liable only for acts of lasciviousness because the intent to commit rape "is not apparent from the act described," and the intent to have sexual intercourse with her was not inferable from the act of licking her genitalia. The Court also pointed out that the "act imputed to him cannot be considered a preparatory act to sexual intercourse."[35] | |||||
|
2008-09-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The defense makes a fuss about the delay in reporting the rape incidents, for it took AAA nine years before she revealed to her mother the incessant violations of her honor. This delay, however, can be justified by AAA's fear of her father and the threat that she would no longer see her mother and siblings, a threat that was made by the appellant every time she resisted his sexual advances. Even though her father was working abroad, her fear of him remained, as he returned to the country every year. She was also so ashamed of what had happened to her that she would just want to keep it to herself. She was unsure whether her mother would believe her if she told her the truth, because she knew how much her mother loved her father, and how much her mother wanted to keep their family together. Also, AAA must have been overwhelmed by fear and confusion and shock over the fact that her own father had defiled her. Indeed, studies show that victims of rape committed by their fathers take much longer in reporting the incidents to the authorities than do other victims.[67] | |||||
|
2008-01-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that AAA's testimony is not credible because it contains an inconsistency. Montinola pointed out that, on direct examination, AAA stated that she was not sure whether Montinola was able to insert his penis in her vagina during the 28 March 2000, 29 March 2000, and 4 November 2000 incidents. Then, on cross examination, she stated that Montinola was able to insert his penis during those instances. The Court of Appeals held that this minor inconsistency was expected and did not destroy AAA's credibility: [M]inor lapses should be expected when a person is made to recall minor details of an experience so humiliating and so painful as rape. After all, the credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by some inconsistencies in her testimony. Moreover, testimonies of child victims are given full faith and credit.[27] Indeed, a minor inconsistency, instead of suggesting prevarication, indicates spontaneity. It is expected from a witness of tender age who is unaccustomed to court proceedings.[28] In People v. Bejic,[29] the Court held that: Rape victims do not cherish keeping in their memory an accurate account of the manner in which they were sexually violated. Thus, errorless recollection of a harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details from an experience so humiliating and painful as rape. In addition, rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation. In the instant case, a minor inconsistency is expected especially because (1) AAA was a child witness, (2) she was made to testify on painful and humiliating incidents, (3) she was sexually abused several times, and (4) she was made to recount details and events that happened several years before she testified. | |||||
|
2004-07-06 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| However, it is not necessary for the information to allege the date and time of the commission of the crime with exactitude unless time is an essential ingredient of the offense.[34] Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. The date or time of the commission of the rape is not a material ingredient of the said crime[35] because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. In fact, the precise time when the rape takes places has no substantial bearing on its commission.[36] As such, the date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy. It is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission. [37] | |||||
|
2004-03-10 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. (Emphasis supplied) The court must inform the parties to a case of the legal basis for the court's decision so that if a party appeals, it can point out to the appellate court the points of law to which it disagrees.[12] Every judge should know the constitutional mandate and the rationale behind it. Judge Querubin should have known the exacting standard imposed on courts by Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution and should not have sacrificed the constitutional standard for brevity's sake. | |||||