This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-09-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As the rape was committed on 20 February 1997, the applicable law is Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, which took effect on 31 December 1993. For the charge of rape under said law to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation.[35] In the instant case, the prosecution has sufficiently proven through the positive and credible testimony of AAA, that petitioner had carnal knowledge of her through force and intimidation. AAA categorically testified that petitioner threatened her with a knife, and that he inserted his penis into her vagina. | |||||
|
2008-09-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The appellant interposed the defense of alibi as a futile attempt to exonerate himself from the crime charged. Settled is the principle that alibi is one of the weakest defenses that can be resorted to by an accused, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it can be easily fabricated.[43] Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, such defense is negative, self-serving, and undeserving of any weight in law.[44] For alibi to succeed as a defense, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence (a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime.[45] | |||||
|
2007-10-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We have held in a number of cases that lust is no respecter of time and place. Rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks along the roadsides, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants, in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping, and even in places which to many, would appear unlikely and high risk venues for its commission. Besides, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[32] This is especially true in the present case as the brothers and sisters of AAA who were with them inside the room were even younger than her. They did not have the slightest idea of what was happening nor even had a suspicion that appellant was committing a crime against their sister because of their innocence brought about by their young age. | |||||