This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-06-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Based on our meticulous review, we find that the courts below erred in finding appellant guilty of rape in its qualified form. Indeed, the subject Informations clearly aver the special qualifying circumstances of minority of "AAA" and her filiation (stepdaughter) to the appellant. While the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove "AAA's" minority through the latter's testimony during the trial and by the presentation of her Certificate of Live Birth[30] showing that she was born on September 15, 1985, it however, failed to prove the fact of relationship between her and the appellant (stepfather-stepdaughter). Notably, said alleged relationship was not even made the subject of stipulation of facts during the pre-trial.[31] As held in People v. Hermocilla,[32] "[a] stepdaughter is a daughter of one's spouse by previous marriage, while a stepfather is the husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken is the offspring." The allegation that "AAA" is the stepdaughter of appellant requires competent proof and should not be easily accepted as factually true. The bare testimony of appellant that he was married to "BBB" ("AAA's" mother) is not enough. Neither does "AAA's" reference to appellant as her stepfather during her testimony would suffice. As ruled in People v. Agustin,[33] "the relationship of the accused to the victim cannot be established by mere testimony or even by the accused's very own admission of such relationship." In this case, save for the testimony of appellant that he was married to "BBB," the record is bereft of any evidence to show that appellant and "BBB" were indeed legally married. The prosecution could have presented the marriage contract, the best evidence to prove the fact of marriage but it did not. As aptly observed in People v. Abello:[34] | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Against AAA's straightforward testimony, accused-appellant raises the defense of alibi, stating that he was at work from 8:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. To successfully invoke alibi, however, an accused must establish with clear and convincing evidence not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[12] Accused-appellant offers nothing but his bare word that he was elsewhere, and his word must fail against AAA's testimony and positive identification of him as the perpetrator. He could not present any corroborating witness or evidence to prove his presence elsewhere than at the scene of the crime. It is well-settled that positive identification, where categorical, consistent, and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving weight in law.[13] | |||||