This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2008-08-20 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Settled is the ruled that in incestuous rape, the father's moral ascendancy and influence over his daughter substitutes for violence and intimidation.[15] The ascendancy or influence necessarily flows from the father's parental authority, which the constitution and the laws recognize, support and enhance, as well as from the children's duty to obey and observe reverence and respect towards their parents.[16] Such reverence and respect are deeply ingrained in the minds of Filipino children and are recognized by law.[17] Abuse of both by a father can subjugate his daughter's will, thereby forcing her to do whatever he wants.[18] The record fully bears out the incidents of rape.[19] | |||||
|
2004-06-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We cannot accept appellant's defense of alibi. In People v. Francisco,[72] a case involving the sexual abuses on a child victim by a relative, we did not give credence to the defense of denial and alibi interposed by accused-appellant. We said that these defenses are inherently weak. It is elementary that for alibi to prosper, the accused must not only prove his presence in another place at the time of the commission of the offense, but he must also demonstrate that it would be physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime.[73] | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Apart from testifying with respect to the distance of their houses from that of Jaime Agbanlog's residence, appellants were unable to give any explanation and neither were they able to show that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime. Hence, the positive identification of the appellants by eyewitnesses Jimmy Wabe, Jaime Agbanlog, Rey Camat and Gerry Bullanday prevails over their defense of alibi and denial.[21] | |||||
|
2002-03-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Francisco,[19] we held that:[T]he seven circumstances (including minority and relationship) added by R.A. 7659 to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, are special qualifying circumstances, the presence of any of which takes the case out of the purview of simple rape and effectively qualifies the crime to one punishable by death. Corollary thereto, the Court, in People v. Javier, stressed that in a criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which the accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for the said penalty to be upheld. Therefore, to warrant the imposition of the supreme penalty of death in the instant case, the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself. In the case at bar, the records are bereft of any independent evidence, such as complainant's Certificate of Birth, Baptismal Certificate, or other authentic documents showing her age. The fact that accused-appellant has not denied the allegation that she was a minor when the crimes were committed cannot make up for the failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden in this regard. Hence, the qualifying circumstance of minority required under RA 7659 cannot be appreciated in this case.[20] | |||||
|
2002-03-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the prosecution failed to so present a marriage certificate to prove the fact of marriage between accused-appellant and complainant's mother. Therefore, the relationship between accused-appellant and complainant of stepfather and stepdaughter, respectively, was not established by the prosecution. Accordingly, the qualifying circumstance of relationship likewise cannot apply.[21] | |||||
|
2002-02-19 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| The defense put up by the appellant is alibi. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must not only prove his presence at another place at the time of the commission of the offense, but he must also demonstrate that it would be physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime.[32] In the instant case, appellant was within the vicinity of the locus criminis when the crime was committed. Although he claimed that he was at his employer's stall waiting for the delivery of goods when the incident took place, he did not present his employer to corroborate his statement. Alibi is a weak defense and becomes even weaker by reason of the failure of the defense to present any corroboration.[33] More importantly, the defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by prosecution witness Jimmy Escala that it was appellant Ramil Matic who stabbed the victim.[34] | |||||
|
2001-07-31 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| C. The foregoing discussion notwithstanding, we think that the imposition of the death penalty by the trial court is erroneous. It is settled that to justify the imposition of the death penalty, both the relationship of the victim and her age must be alleged and proved.[67] Thus, in People v. Javier,[68] where the victim was alleged to be 16 years old at the time of the commission of the rapes, it was held:. . . Although the victim's age was not contested by the defense, proof of age of the victim is particularly necessary in this case considering that the victim's age which was then 16 years old is just two years less than the majority age of 18. In this age of modernism, there is hardly any difference between a 16-year old girl and an 18-year old one insofar as physical features and attributes are concerned. A physically developed 16-year old lass may be mistaken for an 18-year old young woman, in the same manner that a frail and young-looking 18-year old lady may pass as a 16-year old minor. Thus, it is in this context that independent proof of the actual age of a rape victim becomes vital and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the victim is indeed under 18 years of age as to fall under the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659. In a criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for said penalty to be upheld. | |||||