This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-08-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| On October 13, 2009, the RTC rendered an Omnibus Judgment[24] convicting the accused-appellant of one count of rape and of acts of lasciviousness. The RTC found AAA's testimony of what had transpired as sincere and truthful, noting though that a specific allegation as to the exact date and month of the commission of rape in 2005 was absent. The trial court thus pointed out the settled doctrine that in a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of rape, not the time of its commission,[25] the latter not being an element of the crime.[26] Further, the accused-appellant cannot ascribe any ill-motive against AAA which could have induced the latter to fabricate such grave charges. The accused-appellant's flight after he learned that charges were filed against him likewise worked to disfavor him. If he were indeed innocent, he would have stayed to vindicate himself from the accusations.[27] | |||||
|
2000-07-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The argument is likewise without merit. The information charges only one offense - that committed in May 1991. Besides, there is no variance between the time proved and the time alleged in the information. It cannot be said that appellant was deprived of the opportunity to prepare for his defense.[19] The information alleged that the crime occurred in May 1991, only that the victim cannot remember the exact day of the month when it happened. It is sufficient if the time averred is near the actual date as the information of the prosecuting officer will permit, and since that was done in this case, it was not shown that the time proved did not surprise or substantially prejudice the defense.[20] Besides, in a rape case, the date or time is not an essential element of the crime and therefore need not be accurately stated.[21] Assuming that there were several rapes committed between May 1991 up to February 1992, appellant was only charged and convicted of one crime of rape. He is not, as he cannot, be convicted of other rapes of which he was not charged even if the same were proven during trial, otherwise, it would violate his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. | |||||
|
2000-02-15 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| And while private respondent denied having signed any document selling the subject parcels of land, the trial court found her signature on the subject documents to be genuine, after a comparison thereof with her own documentary evidence on record (Exh. "B"). Indeed, it has been held that where a comparison is permissible, it may be made by the court, with or without the aid of expert witnesses;[12] and evidence respecting handwriting may be given by a comparison made by the court with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered.[13] In the case at bar, the lower court compared private respondent's signatures on the subject documents with that appearing on her own evidence (Exh. "B") and found the same identical. | |||||