This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2009-08-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As a defense, impotence is both a physical and medical question that should be satisfactorily established with the aid of an expert and competent testimony.[14] Impotency as a defense in rape cases must likewise be proved with certainty to overcome the presumption in favor of potency.[15] While Cruz was indeed diagnosed as suffering from erectile dysfunction, this does not preclude the possibility of his having sexual intercourse with AAA. As the CA observed accurately, AAA was raped in 1998 while the medical examination of Cruz was conducted in 2001. A good three years had already lapsed since AAA had been sexually abused. The diagnosis on Cruz in 2001 is, therefore, useless to disprove his sexual potency at the time of the rape incident. It merely corroborates his assertion that he is currently sexually impotent, and not that he has been so since 1995. Cruz was not able to adduce hard evidence to demonstrate his impotency prior to or on June 6, 1998 when the crime of rape was committed. Moreover, assuming arguendo that he was indeed impotent since 1995, it does not discount the possibility that his erection was cured by drugs like Viagra or Ciales. There was simply no proof of his alleged impotency on June 6, 1998 when the beastly act of rape was committed against AAA. | |||||
|
2006-08-07 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Furthermore, as a rule, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, for the trial court is in a better position to pass upon the same. As succinctly explained in the case of People vs. Atop, the trial court has the valuable edge of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying, her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" - all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity.[36] Indeed, the rule is that when a rape victim's testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed inconsistencies, or contradictions in its material points, the same must be given full faith and credit.[37] | |||||
|
2004-11-17 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, it appears that in the middle of the appeal, the petitioner's counsel of record, a certain Atty. Alfonso G. Salvador, suddenly and inexplicably withdrew his appearance as counsel, giving the sole explanation that he was "leaving for the United States for an indefinite period of time by virtue of a petition filed in his favor."[48] In the face of this abandonment, petitioner made an impassioned plea that his lawyer be prevented from this withdrawal in a handwritten "Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and Opposition of Counsel's Withdrawal of Appearance with Leave of Court" received by this Court on September 14, 1999.[49] Petitioner alleged that his counsel's withdrawal is an "untimely and heartbreaking event", considering that he had placed "all [his] trust and confidence on [his counsel's] unquestionable integrity and dignity."[50] | |||||
|
2003-09-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Moral damages are additionally awarded without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof.[31] This is because it is recognized that the victim's injury necessarily results from an abysmal crime to warrant by itself the award of moral damages. The anguish and the pain she has to endure are evident. Indeed, the offended party in a rape case is a victim many times over. In our culture, which puts a premium on the virtue of purity or virginity, rape stigmatizes the victim more than the perpetrator.[32] | |||||
|
2002-04-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and 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. xxx The trial court imposed the death penalty because the victim, Jovelyn Listana, was only ten (10) years old at the time of the commission of the offense and the offender is her stepparent.[77] But we must stress that if this was the case, both circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship with the accused should have been alleged in the information,[78] pursuant to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,[79] as qualifying circumstances. Here, the information failed to mention the step-relationship between appellant and the victim, i.e. that of stepfather and stepdaughter. Following People vs. Balacano,[80] failure to allege the relationship of step-parentage necessarily excludes the offense from the coverage of R.A. No. 7659. Moreover, we find that appellant's live-in partner, Josephine, was only the victim's aunt and not her real mother.[81] Given these premises, legally speaking, the victim could not claim that appellant is her step-father. It follows that appellant could not be declared guilty of qualified rape but only of statutory rape punishable by reclusion perpetua under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.[82] | |||||
|
2002-01-30 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly gave full faith and credence to AAA's testimony. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.[14] The victim would not make public the offense, undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial, and endure the ordeal of narrating all its gory details, if she had not in fact been raped.[15] We quote AAA's testimony: "Q: This is May 23, 1998. Why did you go home on May 23, 1998? | |||||
|
2001-12-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| However, we do not agree with the trial court's imposition of the death penalty on accused-appellant. The Criminal Complaint failed to allege that accused-appellant was the common-law spouse of Aurora's mother and that Aurora was under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the rape. Once more, we rule that, in order to warrant the death penalty, both circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship with the accused must be alleged in the Complaint or Information. Otherwise, the accused can only be convicted of simple rape. The requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense, pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution.[15] | |||||
|
2001-09-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is not necessary that the victim narrate all the sordid details of the rape. To require her to do so would mean that she must relive the horror and anguish she experienced which, in all probability, she was trying hard to erase from memory. Hence, it would be enough if the victim merely said that she was raped.[24] This Court has held consistently that when a woman declares that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to mean that she has been raped, and where her testimony passes the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[25] | |||||
|
2001-09-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Court has consistently declared that the circumstances under the amendatory provisions of Section 11, R.A. No. 7659, the attendance of which would mandate the imposition of the single indivisible penalty of death, are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which should be alleged in the information and proved at the trial.[37] Indeed, Rule 110, Section 8 and 9 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, now specifically require both qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the information. | |||||