This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2003-10-15 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We disagree. The qualifying circumstance of relationship of the accused to the victim being father and daughter is so alleged in the Information. The cases of People v. Bali-balita[21] and People v. Rodriguez,[22] are no longer controlling. The time has come for us to revisit and reexamine the wisdom of these rulings lest blind acquiescence, persistent application and the passage of time may validate what appears to us now as an unsound procedural doctrine that cannot be justified even under the hallowed ground of stare decisis. | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the accused's contention, neither the presence of Arsona's siblings nor the place where the June 1998 rape incident happened would render Arsona's testimony incredulous. At that time, Arsona's siblings would not understand that the accused was sexually molesting her, much less lift a finger to prevent him from carrying out his beastly desires as Arsona's sister was then only more than one year old while her brother was less than a year old.[25] Likewise, the fact that another nearby room inside the house was occupied and Arsona's room did not have a door or curtain at the time of the bestial assault, would not necessarily prevent the accused from carrying out the lechery. We have ruled that, "for rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal or the weather to be fine for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed."[26] In fact, rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone.[27] | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Contrary to Law. While the accusatory portion of the information failed to specifically allege that the rape was committed through force or intimidation, the prosecution was able to establish by evidence that accused-appellant was guilty of rape as defined under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The statement in the preamble of the information that accused-appellant was being charged with rape "penalized under the provisions of Article 266-B in relation to Art. 266-A, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code" made no difference. It is not the preamble or caption of the information, but the actual recital of the facts alleged in the body of the information, that determines the validity and real nature of the criminal charge.[12] | |||||