This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2008-09-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Intimidation, more subjective than not, is peculiarly addressed to the mind of the person against whom it may be employed, and its presence is basically incapable of being tested by any hard and fast rule.[53] Intimidation is normally best viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time and occasion of the crime.[54] AAA was threatened that she would be killed, which created a fear in her mind which caused her to submit to appellant's bestial lust. | |||||
|
2004-05-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) not only urges this Court to affirm the appellant's conviction but, likewise, to increase the penalty meted on him to death. The OSG avers that the rape was committed with the use of a knife and that this fact was alleged in the information and proved during trial. Moreover, the aggravating circumstance of recidivism should be appreciated against the appellant as he had previously been convicted by final judgment of two counts of rape in G.R. Nos. 140934-35[22] and six counts of rape in G.R. No. 138086.[23] | |||||
|
2004-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The weighing of the testimonies of witnesses is best left to the trial court since it is in the best position to discharge that function.[28] The trial judge has the advantage of personally observing the conduct and demeanor of witnesses, an opportunity not available to an appellate court.[29] Absent compelling reasons, we will not disturb on appeal the trial court's findings on the credibility of a witness. | |||||
|
2004-01-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In rape with the use of a deadly weapon, the presence of an aggravating circumstance increases the penalty to death.[48] In the present case, appellant raped Rowena in her dwelling, which is an aggravating circumstance under Article 14 (3) of the Revised Penal Code.[49] However, the Information did not specifically allege dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. In People v. Gallego,[50] the Court ruled that where the information did not allege the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, dwelling could not raise the penalty to death. The Court held:xxx The accused must thence be afforded every opportunity to present his defense on an aggravating circumstance that would spell the difference between life and death in order for the Court to properly "exercise extreme caution in reviewing the parties' evidence." This, the accused can do only if he is appraised of the aggravating circumstance raising the penalty imposable upon him to death. Such aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information, otherwise the Court cannot appreciate it. The death sentence being irrevocable, we cannot allow the decision to take away life to hinge on the inadvertence or keenness of the accused in predicting what aggravating circumstance will be appreciated against him.[51] | |||||
|
2004-01-14 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The crime of rape can be committed by, among other ways, "having carnal knowledge of a woman" with the use of force or intimidation.[6] Intimidation is subjective, and it is addressed to the mind of the person against whom it is employed at the time and occasion of the crime. While there is no hard and fast rule to test its presence,[7] one accepted norm, nevertheless, is whether the intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she were to resist or were not to yield to the desires of the malefactor, the threat would be carried out.[8] | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The conduct of the woman immediately after an alleged sexual assault is crucial to establish the truth or falsity of the rape charge. The victim's instant willingness, as well as courage, to face interrogation and medical examination could be a mute but eloquent proof of the truth of her claim.[106] In this case, the complainant after the assault hurried out of the room and asked for help from two persons she saw in the lodge, but they unfortunately hesitated to help her. She then turned to the cashier and security guard of the lodge, but they also proved uncaring. Certainly, the OSG contends, it is hard to believe that she went to the extent of narrating her experience to complete strangers if she was not telling them the truth. Janice lost no time in disclosing the incident to her mother the same night when she arrived home. Accompanied by her parents and a policeman-neighbor, she reported the incident to the police, and she submitted herself to medical examination. | |||||
|
2002-05-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| x x x x Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes the crime of forcible abduction. The elements of forcible abduction are (a) that the person abducted is a woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation; (b) that the abduction is against her will; and, (c) that the abduction is with lewd designs. On the other hand, Art. 335 of the same Code defines the crime of rape and provides for its penalty. The elements of rape pertinent to this case are: (a) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and, (b) that such act is accomplished by using force or intimidation.[47] All the elements of forcible abduction were proved in this case. The victim, who is a young girl, was taken against her will as shown by the fact that at knife-point she was dragged and taken by accused-appellant to a place far from her abode. At her tender age, Lenie could not be expected to physically resist considering the fact that even her companion, Jessica Silona, had to run home to escape accused-appellant's wrath as he brandished a hunting knife. Fear gripped and paralyzed Lenie into helplessness as she was manhandled by accused-appellant who was armed and twenty-four (24) years her senior. What we held in People v. Rapisora[48] could be said in the case at bar - | |||||