This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2015-11-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, "the presence of an aggravating circumstance cannot serve to raise the penalty to be imposed [because] simple rape is punishable by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, that penalty shall, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, be imposed regardless of any modifying circumstance that might have attended the commission of the crime."[34] | |||||
|
2014-04-02 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Time and again, the Court has held that factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. This rule, however, admits of exceptions such as where there exists a fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been ignored or misconstrued, or where the trial court has acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of the facts.[41] | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In the case of BBB, the allegation in the Information merely alleging that BBB is his niece is not specific enough to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. If the offender is merely a relation not a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, or common law spouse of the mother of the victim the specific relationship must be alleged in the information, i.e. that he is "a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree."[50] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The same pronouncement was reiterated in the recent case of People v. Esperanza,[50] where we found as fatally defective the allegation that the victim therein was the "niece" of appellant. We further said therein that even granting that the relationship within the third civil degree either of consanguinity or affinity was duly proved during the trial, the same cannot justify the imposition of the death penalty because to do so would deny appellant's constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[51] | |||||
|
2003-11-19 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that the relationship of the perpetrator with the victim must be duly alleged in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty.[34] "If the offender is merely a relation - not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or common law spouse of the mother of the victim -- the specific relationship must be alleged in the information, i.e., that he is `a relative by consanguinity or affinity [as the case may be] within the third civil degree.'"[35] | |||||
|
2003-10-16 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We have delved through the records of the case, especially Jelyn's testimony, and we find no reason to doubt that she was telling the truth when she declared that her father had raped her. No young girl, indeed, would concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime as rape at the hands of her own father, undergo medical examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than an earnest desire to seek justice.[32] This holds true especially where the complainant is a minor, whose testimony deserves full credence. And such credibility is definitely strengthened when the accusing finger is pointed at a close relative.[33] The court need only to establish the credibility of the victim. | |||||