This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, the RTC was not convinced with the explanation of the defense. It noted that their account of the events was seemingly unusual and incredible.[40] Besides, the defense of consensual copulation was belatedly invoked and seemed to have been a last ditch effort to avoid culpability. The accused never mentioned about the same at the pre-trial stage. The trial court only came to know about it when it was their turn to take the witness stand, catching the court by surprise.[41] More importantly, it must be emphasized that when the accused in a rape case claims that the sexual intercourse between him and the complainant was consensual, as in this case, the burden of evidence shifts to him, such that he is now enjoined to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the relationship. Being an affirmative defense that needs convincing proof, it must be established with sufficient evidence that the intercourse was indeed consensual.[42] Generally, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish each and every element of the crime and that it is the accused who is responsible for its commission. This is because in criminal cases, conviction must rest on a moral certainty of guilt.[43] Burden of evidence is that logical necessity which rests on a party at any particular time during the trial to create a prima facie case in his favor or to overthrow one when created against him. A prima facie case arises when the party having the burden of proof has produced evidence sufficient to support a finding and adjudication for him of the issue in litigation.[44] However, when the accused alleges consensual sexual congress, he needs convincing proof such as love notes, mementos, and credible witnesses attesting to the romantic or sexual relationship between the offender and his supposed victim. Having admitted to carnal knowledge of the complainant, the burden now shifts to the accused to prove his defense by substantial evidence.[45] | |||||
|
2014-09-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We cannot give credence to appellant's contentions. "An appeal in [a] criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question including one not raised by the parties."[26] "[W]hen an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the appellant."[27] In other words, when appellant appealed the RTC's judgment of conviction for murder, he is deemed to have abandoned his right to invoke the prohibition on double jeopardy since it became the duty of the appellate court to correct errors as may be found in the appealed judgment. Thus, appellant could not have been placed twice in jeopardy when the CA modified the ruling of the RTC by finding him guilty of robbery with homicide as charged in the Information instead of murder. | |||||
|
2014-04-02 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower courts, unless there is a showing that the lower courts overlooked or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness.[11] | |||||
|
2013-11-13 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We must emphasize that when the accused in a rape case claims, as in the case at bar, that the sexual intercourse between him and the complainant was consensual, the burden of evidence shifts to him, such that he is now enjoined to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the relationship. Being an affirmative defense, it must be established with convincing evidence, such as by some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like.[25] Thus, in People v. Mirandilla, Jr.,[26] we held: The sweetheart theory as a defense, however, necessarily admits carnal knowledge, the first element of rape. Effectively, it leaves the prosecution the burden to prove only force or intimidation, the coupling element of rape. x x x. | |||||
|
2013-09-18 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The first element is undisputed as it is an admission inherent in the sweetheart defense advanced by Bacatan,[19] which in turn, was correctly, rejected by the courts a quo for lack of substantial corroboration. | |||||
|
2013-04-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court has likewise repeatedly held that the sweetheart theory, as a defense, necessarily admits carnal knowledge, the first element of rape. In People v. Mirandilla, Jr.,[18] we held that "[t]his admission makes the sweetheart theory more difficult to defend, for it is not only an affirmative defense that needs convincing proof; after the prosecution has successfully established a prima facie case, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused, who has to adduce evidence that the intercourse was consensual." | |||||
|
2012-06-20 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged and the complicity or participation of the accused.[22] While a lone witness' testimony is sufficient to convict an accused in certain instances, the testimony must be clear, consistent, and credible qualities we cannot ascribe to this case. Jurisprudence is consistent that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it must both come from a credible witness and be credible in itself tested by human experience, observation, common knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through the years.[23] Clearly from the foregoing, the prosecution failed to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was indeed in possession of shabu, and that he freely and consciously possessed the same. | |||||
|
2012-04-25 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We emphasize that the assessment by the trial court of a witness' credibility, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight or influence. This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed firsthand their deportment and manner of testifying under grueling examination. [12] | |||||