This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2008-01-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The delay in the reporting of the crime, the absence of a threat on the life of the victim, and the presence of other occupants in the house cannot weaken the force of the victim's clear and convincing statements. Jurisprudence states that the delay in reporting the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge. The charge is beclouded - only if the delay is unreasonable and unexplained.[27] Often, victims would rather bear the ignominy and the pain in private than reveal their shame to the world.[28] Likewise, a stepfather, who exercises moral and physical ascendancy over his stepdaughter, need not make any threat against her because the latter is cowed into submission when gripped with the fear of refusing the advances of a person she customarily obeys.[29] Rape may, likewise, be committed in a room adjacent to where the victim's family is sleeping, or even in a room shared with other people. There is no rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[30] | |||||
|
2007-08-24 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidences, leaves the minds of the [judges] in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge; a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding, and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it.[23] | |||||
|
2002-04-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim. xxx The trial court imposed the death penalty because the victim, Jovelyn Listana, was only ten (10) years old at the time of the commission of the offense and the offender is her stepparent.[77] But we must stress that if this was the case, both circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship with the accused should have been alleged in the information,[78] pursuant to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,[79] as qualifying circumstances. Here, the information failed to mention the step-relationship between appellant and the victim, i.e. that of stepfather and stepdaughter. Following People vs. Balacano,[80] failure to allege the relationship of step-parentage necessarily excludes the offense from the coverage of R.A. No. 7659. Moreover, we find that appellant's live-in partner, Josephine, was only the victim's aunt and not her real mother.[81] Given these premises, legally speaking, the victim could not claim that appellant is her step-father. It follows that appellant could not be declared guilty of qualified rape but only of statutory rape punishable by reclusion perpetua under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.[82] | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As to the absence of any evidence of injury on Raquel's body in the medico-legal examination, it should be noted that she was examined by Dr. Owen Lebaquin on 3 February 1997, or almost seventeen (17) days after the last incident. Any bruise or scratch which she might have sustained on the night of 17 January 1997 could have already healed and hence no longer visible. More importantly, in rape cases, absence of bodily injuries does not matter where there is an existing relationship between the accused and the victim resulting in the moral ascendancy of the former over the latter. The accused being the stepfather of the victim certainly exercised moral and physical ascendancy over her, which would suffice to make her submit to his bestial desires.[47] | |||||
|
2000-10-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| testimony of Haidie as to how the alleged rape happened was full of inconsistencies and lacking in detail. While this was not raised as an issue by accused-appellant, the filing of an appeal in criminal cases throws open the entire case for review and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct any error, as may be found in the appealed judgment, whether assigned as an error or not.[5] It bears stressing that in rape cases, courts must be guided by the basic rule that the prosecution evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. The prosecution must demonstrate the culpability of the accused beyond | |||||
|
2000-10-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| But, even if we disregard Remedios' testimony, we still have the straightforward and credible testimony of Nerissa narrating the acts of rape committed against her by accused-appellant. It bears stressing here that Nerissa was only sixteen (16) years old when she lodged the complaints against her father. It has been held that no woman, especially one of tender age, would contrive a complaint for rape, allow a gynecological examination and permit herself to be subjected to a public trial if she is not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished. In fact, the prevailing rule is that the testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence. No young girl would expose herself to humiliation and public scandal unless she is impelled by a strong desire to seek justice.[13] | |||||