This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-09-18 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the claim that they were sweethearts does not justify the commission of the crimes. For the Court to even consider giving credence to the sweetheart defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory. Independent proof is required - such as tokens, mementos, and photographs.[9] And while Cayanan produced two love letters allegedly written by AAA, the CA correctly sustained the finding of the RTC that these letters were unauthenticated and therefore, bereft of any probative value. | |||||
|
2012-06-18 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In the case of People v. Pangilinan,[8] which affirmed the doctrines enunciated in the cases of People v. Dahilig[9] and People v. Abay,[10] the Court explained: Under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law. | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Thus, there being no compelling reason to deviate from the lower courts' appreciation of "AAA's" testimony, the Court gives deference to the well-settled rule "that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by a trial court, whose findings are binding and conclusive on appellate courts. Matters affecting credibility are best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the elusive and incommunicable evidence of that witness' deportment on the stand while testifying, an opportunity denied to the appellate courts which usually rely on the cold pages of the silent records of the case."[57] | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| For the ["sweetheart"] theory to prosper, the existence of the supposed relationship must be proven by convincing substantial evidence. Failure to adduce such evidence renders his claim to be self-serving and of no probative value. For the satisfaction of the Court, there should be a corroboration by their common friends or, if none, a substantiation by tokens of such a relationship such as love letters, gifts, pictures and the like.[29] | |||||