This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| AAA had pointed to the appellant as the person who forced himself on her in the afternoon of December 2, 2006. And the unyielding principle is that denial cannot prevail over the victim's categorical and positive identification of the accused in the absence of proof of ill motive.[12] Here, 11-year-old AAA identified appellant as the malefactor. Considering her tender years, she could not have invented a horrid tale, but must have recounted a harrowing experience. Indeed, it is unbelievable for an 11-year-old country lass to publicly disclose that she had been sexually abused, then undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial if her motive were other than to protect her honor and bring to justice the person who unleashed his lust on her. | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The qualifying circumstance of relationship not having been properly pleaded, appellant should be convicted only of statutory rape under paragraph (d) of Article 266-A, for having carnal knowledge of a woman "under twelve (12) years of age." Statutory rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua.[24] | |||||
|
2009-02-27 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Neither alibi nor denial can prevail over the victim's categorical and positive identification of the accused in the absence of any proof of ill-motive.[7] Here, four-year-old AAA spontaneously and without hesitation identified appellant as the malefactor. Considering her tender years, she could not have invented a horrid tale but must have truthfully recounted a harrowing experience. We therefore find no reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA. | |||||