This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-12-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Equally undeserving of consideration is Estoya's defense of denial and alibi. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the victim with no improper motive to testify falsely against him.[24] In addition, for his defense of alibi to prosper, Estoya must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but he must also satisfactorily establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of commission.[25] On April 5, 2006, at around 3:00 p.m., Estoya claimed to be at his house, which was only around six to seven meters away from BBB's house, where AAA was raped.[26] The very short distance between the two houses does not foreclose the possibility of Estoya's presence at BBB's house at the time of AAA's rape. Lastly, Estoya did not present any evidence to corroborate his alibi. He averred that he spent the day with his nephews and nieces, yet he did not present a single one to support his averment. In the face of AAA's unwavering testimony and very positive and firm identification of Estoya as her assailant, Estoya could no longer hide behind the protective shield of his presumed innocence, but he should have come forward with credible and strong evidence of his lack of authorship of the crime. Considering that the burden of evidence had shifted to Estoya but he did not discharge his burden at all, there is no other outcome except to affirm his guilt beyond reasonable doubt[27] for the crime of simple rape of AAA, under Article 226-A, paragraph (1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. | |||||
|
2004-01-14 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The crime committed by appellant is simple rape for which the penalty of reclusion perpetua is prescribed. The trial court correctly awarded civil indemnity of P50,000.00 but it has overlooked the prevailing rule that, in rape cases, moral damages should similarly be awarded.[24] | |||||