This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-04-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| For intoxication to be considered as mitigating circumstance, it must be shown that the intoxication impaired the will power of the accused and that he did not know what he was doing or could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts.[24] The person pleading intoxication must prove that he took such quantity of alcoholic beverage, prior to the commission of the crime, as would blur his reason.[25] This, the appellants failed to do. The records are bereft of any evidence that the quantity of liquor they had taken was of such quantity as to affect their mental faculties. On the contrary, the fact that appellants could recall details of what had transpired after their drinking session is the best proof that they knew what they were doing during that occasion. The deception, the device, the place and manner of perpetrating the crime all point to the fact that appellants had complete control of their minds. | |||||
|
2004-03-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Castillo's reliance on her low educational level is similarly unavailing. The penalty for kidnapping for ransom is the singular and indivisible penalty of death. This bars the application of any alternative, mitigating or aggravating circumstance.[12] | |||||
|
2000-02-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| This contention is without merit. The perceived discrepancies in the testimony of Bermalyne as to the number of times she was raped are inconsequential. Inconsistencies of this nature can be expected of a young girl whose harrowing experience she is called upon to recall.[12] They tend to buttress, rather than weaken, her credibility, since they indicate that her testimony was not contrived.[13] Indeed, victims of rape hardly retain in their memories the dates, number of times and manner they were violated. For this reason, it has been held that the exact date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime.[14] What is material is that the commission of the rape by accused-appellant against complainant is sufficiently proven. Discrepancies should refer to significant facts which are crucial to the guilt or innocence of an accused. Inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime, such as the exact time of the commission of the crime, are not grounds for acquittal.[15] | |||||