This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-09-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Lastly, we are not persuaded by accused-appellant's argument that he is innocent because he chose to face prosecution and clear his name rather than go into hiding. Unlike flight of an accused, which is competent evidence against him as having a tendency to establish his guilt, non-flight is simply inaction, which may be due to several factors. Hence, it may not be positively construed as an indication of innocence.[34] In People v. Diaz,[35] we explained:As we have held in People vs. Omar, non-flight may not be construed as an indication of innocence. There is no law or dictum holding that non-flight of an accused is conclusive proof of innocence. In the more recent case of People vs. Delmo, the appellants therein claimed that none of them fled despite opportunities to do so which should be credited to them as an indication of their innocence. To this contention we held that "[w]hile it is true that we have ruled that flight is evidence of guilt, there is no law or dictum holding that staying put is proof of innocence, for the Court is not blind to the cunning ways of a wolf which, after a kill, may feign innocence and choose not to flee." (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In any event, notwithstanding the fact that the determination of mental retardation is deeply rooted in medical psychology, we had previously ruled that evidence other than a psychometric evaluation can prove mental retardation or abnormality.[15] Furthermore, we held that mental retardation can be proved by evidence other than medical or clinical evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses and even the observation of the trial court.[16] We find no error on the part of the Court of Appeals when it likewise gave weight to the testimony of BBB (AAA's mother) regarding AAA's difficulties in school due to low comprehension and failure to complete even simple chores.[17] | |||||
|
2011-10-19 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, as clarified in People v. Dalandas,[40] People v. Cartuano does not preclude the presentation by the State of proof other than clinical evidence to establish the mental retardation of the victim. For sure, the courts are not entirely dependent on the results of clinical examinations in establishing mental retardation. In People v. Almacin,[41] for instance, the Court took into consideration the fact that the victim was illiterate and unschooled in concluding that she was mentally incapable of assenting to or dissenting from the sexual intercourse.[42] Also, in People v. Dumanon,[43] the Court concurred in the trial court's observation and conclusion that the victim was a mental retardate based on her physical appearance and on her difficulty to understand and answer the questions during her testimony.[44] | |||||
|
2001-11-26 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant harps on the fact that he did not flee from the scene of the crime, nor left his residence to hide from the authorities. He even went back to Karuhatan, Valenzuela a few months after to apply for a student permit. Clearly, he says, "the wicked flee even when no man pursueth, whereas the righteous are as brave as the lion."[42] However, non-flight is not a proof of innocence,[43] it is simply inaction, which may be due to several factors.[44] While flight may be an indicium of guilt, there is no case law holding that non-flight is conclusive proof of innocence.[45] | |||||
|
2000-03-03 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Even without proof that there was intimidation employed upon the victim, we hold that Marilou was indeed raped by accused Arnel Omar. A woman need not be proven as completely insane or deprived of reason for sexual intercourse to constitute the crime of rape. The term "deprived of reason" has been construed to include those suffering from mental abnormality or deficiency; or some form of mental retardation; the feeble-minded but coherent; or even those suffering from mental abnormality or deficiency of reason.[23] It cannot be denied that Marilou suffered from a mental abnormality, as revealed by the psychological tests conducted on her. Even accused Arnel Omar acknowledged this fact. Any sexual intercourse with a mentally deficient woman who is incapable of giving rational consent constitutes rape. | |||||