This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-02-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Verily, it becomes abundantly clear to this Court that AAA's testimony regarding the events that took place on the 10th of August, the 28th of September, the 26th of October, the 9th of November and the 8th of December 2003 is deserving of the full weight and credence accorded to it by the RTC and the Court of Appeals. Such testimony is categorical, explicit and replete with the details of how appellant carried out his sexual designs against AAA. Against such testimony, and in the absence of any convincing proof that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crimes, the denial and alibi of the appellant must inevitably fail.[39] | |||||
|
2013-09-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The trial court properly disregarded appellant's non-flight. While it has been ruled that an accused's decision not to flee after the crime despite an opportunity to do so is not characteristic of a guilty person, the opposite has also been upheld in some cases. Appellant may not have indeed fled from the scene of the crime as he even allowed himself to be subjected to paraffin test, but the same are not necessarily indicative of a clear conscience. "Non-flight is not proof of innocence" as ruled in People v. Del Castillo.[49] Thus, the fact that appellant did not flee may be a badge of innocence, nevertheless, it is not a sufficient ground to exculpate him from his proven criminal liability. | |||||
|
2010-02-01 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence holds that the failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape.[17] Even the victim's lack of resistance, especially when intimidated by the offender into submission, does not signify voluntariness or consent.[18] In People v. Corpuz,[19] we acknowledged that even absent any actual force or intimidation, rape may be committed if the malefactor has moral ascendancy over the victim. We emphasized that in rape committed by a close kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, moral influence or ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation.[20] | |||||