This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-06-06 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Even Ireno's contention that the charges against him were merely fabricated by his wife because she suspects that he is having an affair with another woman deserves scant consideration. Aside from the fact that the said allegation was not proved, it must be emphasized that no member of a rape victim's family would dare encourage the victim to publicly expose the dishonor to the family unless the crime was in fact committed, especially in this case where the victim and the offender are relatives. [24] It is unnatural for a mother to use her daughter as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject her child to embarrassment and lifelong stigma. [25] | |||||
|
2011-03-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| [29] People v. Ibarrientos, 476 Phil. 493, 512 (2004). | |||||
|
2010-09-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It must be emphasized that no member of a rape victim's family would dare encourage the victim to publicly expose the dishonor to the family unless the crime was in fact committed, especially in this case where the victim and the offender are relatives.[37] It is unnatural for a mother to use her daughter as an engine of malice, especially if it will subject her child to embarrassment and lifelong stigma.[38] | |||||
|
2008-11-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Q: Now, if your uncle will be convicted he could be sentenced for life imprisonment or death? A: Yes, sir.[20] Talan claimed that the qualifying circumstance of relationship should not be considered in Criminal Case No. L-3373. The Court agrees. The qualifying circumstance of relationship must be specifically alleged in the information the information must clearly state that "the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim."[21] In People v. Ibarrientos,[22] the Court held that:The allegation in the information x x x that the appellant is an uncle of the victim is not specific enough to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. We have previously ruled, and now we reiterate, that it is necessary to spell out in the Information for rape that the accused is a "relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity" as stated in Article 266-B. Without such averment, the Information x x x falls short of the statutory requirement for the imposition of capital punishment on the offender. Factual allegations in the information do not need to be referred to as "qualifying circumstances," in order to appreciate them as such and raise the penalty. However, these factual allegations must be specified completely, in order to fully inform the accused of the circumstances which warrant the imposition of a higher offense. Otherwise, such circumstances cannot be appreciated to qualify the offense. | |||||
|
2006-10-11 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Q So the cogon grass were never an obstruction to your vision? A No, sir.[57] Thus, petitioners' denials and alibi cannot prevail over the collective positive testimonies of Jarmin and Batata, who positively and spontaneously pointed to them as the perpetrators at the trial. Denial and alibi are weak defenses in criminal prosecution: alibi is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove, while denial is mere self-serving evidence which cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of witnesses who identified the perpetrators. To merit approbation, clear and convincing evidence must be adduced to show that petitioners were in a place other than the situs of the crime when it was committed, such that it was physically impossible for them to have committed the crime.[58] In this case, it was not impossible for petitioners to rush to the ranch of petitioner Leyson from his farm which was only 5 to 6 kms away on horseback, arrive there at 10:00 a.m., fire their guns and burn the houses of private respondents. | |||||