This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-10-17 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, appellant shall not be eligible for parole, as enunciated in People v. Tuazon,[19] wherein the Court held that:x x x appellant shall not be eligible for parole pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Section 2 thereof provides that the law "shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment." Although the law makes no reference to persons convicted to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua such as the appellant herein, the Court has consistently held that the Indeterminate Sentence Law likewise does not apply to persons sentenced to reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2008-08-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We cannot give weight to this bare assertion in the absence of sufficient corroborative evidence. We note, too, that not a few offenders in rape cases attribute the charges against them to family feuds, resentment or revenge. These alleged motives, however, cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of complainants who remain steadfast throughout the trial.[47] Moreover, it is unnatural for a parent to use his or her offspring as an instrument of malice, since the ensuing case may subject a daughter to embarrassment and even to the mark of disgrace that a rape victim may undeservedly carry.[48] | |||||