This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
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] | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| Intimidation and coercion must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the rape and not by any hard-and-fast rule. It depends on several factors like difference in age, size, and strength of the parties, and their relationship.[14] | |||||