This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-10-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Contrary to accused-appellants' assertions, they were convicted by the trial court, not on the basis of their plea of guilty, but on the strength of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, which was properly appreciated by the trial court.[47] The prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused-appellants and their degrees of culpability beyond reasonable doubt. | |||||
|
2009-04-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In People v. Ceredon, we held that in rape cases, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of its commission. The date or time the rape was committed is not an essential ingredient as it is the carnal knowledge through force and intimidation that is the gravamen of the offense. It is, thus, sufficient that the date of commission alleged is as near as possible to the actual date.[14] | |||||