This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-06-30 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It has been held that when the victim's testimony is corroborated by the physician's finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge; that laceration, whether healed or fresh, is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.[25] The Court, however, finds no physical evidence of sexual penetration and no corroboration of other vital details in AAA's narration of the rape. | |||||
|
2007-07-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The crime committed in the case at bar is simple rape, the penalty for which under the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua. Since Pacursa was a minor when the crime was committed, the penalty must be reduced by one degree, to reclusion temporal.[36] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and in the absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the maximum of the penalty shall be within the medium range of reclusion temporal, or fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor, ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years.[37] | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The assessment of the credibility of witness and their testimony is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand; and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under examination. Its findings on such matters are binding and conclusive on appellate courts unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[66] Appellant's defense of alibi and denial cannot stand in the face of the positive identification of the accused. We have unfailingly held that alibi and denial being inherently weak cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.[67] It is facile to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and is generally rejected.[68] | |||||
|
2004-06-17 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| This Court emphasizes that while the submitted birth certificate is not entirely satisfactory, a careful review of the records reveals other evidence of appellant's minority. In the December 19, 1994 hearing, upon being asked by the trial court, appellant declared that he was 20 years old, consequently indicating that on November 21, 1990, he must have been only 16 years old ... This Court held that the claim of minority by an appellant will be upheld even without any proof to corroborate his testimony, especially so when coupled by the fact that the prosecution failed to present contradictory evidence thereto. In this case, the prosecution only questioned the submitted birth certificate, but did not adduce any evidence to disprove appellant's claim of minority when he committed the crime. Accordingly, the mitigating circumstance of minority should, as a matter of fairness, be appreciated in favor of appellant, especially in light of the compassionate liberality this Court has granted to minors involved in serious crimes. Parenthetically, inasmuch as the appellant is now almost twenty-three years old, he is no longer entitled to a suspended sentence under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8369, otherwise known as the Family Court Act of 1997. In People v. Clores, Jr.,[93] we said | |||||