This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-07-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Concerning Criminal Case No. 781-T, the Court of Appeals modified the guilty verdict of the RTC against Nelson from attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness. We can no longer review the "downgrading" of the crime by the appellate court without violating the right against double jeopardy, which proscribes an appeal from a judgment of acquittal or for the purpose of increasing the penalty imposed upon the accused.[32] In effect, the Court of Appeals already acquitted Nelson of the charge of attempted rape, convicting him only for acts of lasciviousness, a crime with a less severe penalty. Hence, we limit ourselves to determining whether there is enough evidence to support Nelson's conviction for acts of lasciviousness. | |||||
|
2010-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We find the appeal without merit. The Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the trial court's ruling that attempted murder was clearly established by the prosecution witnesses. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court due to its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[20] These significant factors are needed in unearthing the truth, especially in conflicting testimonies. The findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted,[21] which is not true in the present case. | |||||
|
2009-06-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| To prove victim's minority, the prosecution must adduce in evidence her birth certificate, for it is the best evidence to prove her age at the time of the commission of the crime.[52] Substitutionary evidence, absent proof of loss or destruction of the original birth certificate or the unavailability thereof without fault of the prosecution, will not suffice.[53] Although there is a rule[54] stating that the death penalty can still be imposed if the circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship to the perpetrator were alleged in the Information and their existence duly admitted by the defense on stipulation of facts during re-trial, this precept finds no application here. | |||||
|
2008-02-06 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Applying these guidelines to the case at bar, we note that AAA's account of her harrowing experience is trustworthy and convincing as there is nary an indication in the records that her testimony should be seen in a suspicious light. On the contrary, the records do reveal that AAA testified in a candid and straightforward manner and in fact remained resolute and unswerving even on cross-examination, able as she was to withstand all the rigors of the case including the medical examination and the trial that followed. Indeed, it is inconceivable for a child to concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime as rape at the hands of a close kin and subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than an earnest desire to seek justice.[33] | |||||
|
2008-01-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that AAA's failure to immediately report the incidents to her relatives or to the proper authorities affected her credibility. AAA's failure to report the incidents immediately was justifiable: (1) Montinola threatened her that he would cut her throat, as well as the throats of her siblings, if she told anyone about the incidents; (2) her mother was at work most of the time; (3) Montinola had moral and physical control over her, kept an eye on her, and interrupted her whenever she attempted to report the incidents to her mother; (4) even if she told her mother, her mother would not have believed her; (5) she was overwhelmed by fear and confusion; (6) telling people that one has been raped by her own father is not easy to do; and (7) a 14-year-old child cannot be expected to know how to go about reporting crimes to the proper authorities. In People v. Bugarin,[31] the Court held that: [D]elay in making a criminal accusation [does not] impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. In People v. Coloma, x x x the Court adverted to the father's moral and physical control over the young complainant in explaining the delay of eight years before the complaint against her father was made. In this case, [complainant] must have been overwhelmed by fear and confusion, and shocked that her own father had defiled her. x x x She also testified that she was afraid to tell her mother because the latter might be angered x x x. Indeed, a survey conducted by the University of the Philippines Center for Women's Studies showed that victims of rape committed by their fathers took much longer in reporting the incidents to the authorities than did other victims. Many factors account for this difference: the fact that the father lives with the victim and constantly exerts moral authority over her, the threat he might make against her, the victim's fear of her mother and other relatives. (Emphasis ours) The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that he could not have raped AAA because there were other people in the house when the incidents took place. There is no rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[32] AAA's siblings were sleeping when the incidents took place. In Bugarin,[33] the Court held that, "Suffice it to state that lust is no respecter of time and place. Our cases record instances of rape committed inside family dwellings when other occupants are asleep." In People v. Alarcon,[34] the Court held that: [The accused's] argument that rape could not have been committed due to the presence of AAA's siblings by her side is x x x bereft of merit. Rape is not a respecter of place or time. It is not necessary that the place where the rape is committed be isolated. There have been too many instances when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family members sleeping side by side. Rape is not rendered impossible simply because the siblings of the victim who were with her in that small room were not awakened during its commission. (Emphasis ours) The Court is not impressed with Montinola's claim that AAA did not adduce evidence "sufficient to pass the test of moral certainty." In rape cases, the credibility of the complainant's testimony is almost always the single most important issue. When the complainant's testimony is credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused's conviction.[35] | |||||
|
2008-01-29 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We find the appeal without merit. The Court of Appeals was correct in affirming with modification the ruling of the trial court that four counts of rape were clearly established by the prosecution witnesses. The findings and observations of the trial court on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses are binding and conclusive on the appellate court unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted,[17] which is not true in the present case. Moreover, AAA's testimony is worthy of belief because she categorically pointed to appellant as the person who sexually abused her. | |||||
|
2007-11-20 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We find the appeal without merit. The Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the ruling of the trial court that double murder was clearly established by the prosecution's witnesses who were then elementary pupils at the time of the incident. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court due to its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[3] These significant factors are needed in unearthing the truth, especially in conflicting testimonies. The findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted,[4] which is not true in the present case. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses' testimonies were worthy of belief since the witnesses were young and they had no ill-motive to falsely testify and impute a serious crime against appellant. | |||||