This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2003-11-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on appellant. It likewise properly awarded the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity which is mandatory upon a finding of rape[9] as well as the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages which needs no proof since it is presumed that the rape victim suffered moral injuries.[10] | |||||
|
2003-10-24 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| While generally an accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearly charged in the information, this rule is not without exception. The right to assail the sufficiency of the information or the admission of evidence may be waived by the accused.[14] In People v. Torellos,[15] this Court held:Appellant contends that the information failed to specify the acts which constituted the crime. It is too late in the day for him to assail the insufficiency of the allegations in the information. He should have raised this issue prior to his arraignment by filing a motion to quash. Failing to do so, he is deemed to have waived any objection on this ground pursuant to Rule 117, Section 9 (formerly Section 8) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit: | |||||
|
2003-04-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Palarca,[10] the accusatory portion of the information failed to specifically allege that the rape was committed through force or intimidation, although the prosecution was able to establish by evidence that the appellant was guilty of rape as defined under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Similarly, the appellant failed to object to the sufficiency of the information or to the admission of evidence. In affirming his conviction, it was held that an information which lacks certain essential allegations may still sustain a conviction when the accused fails to object to its sufficiency during the trial, and the deficiency was cured by competent evidence presented therein.[11] | |||||
|
2002-08-06 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| her should she tell someone that he raped her; and that she knew that he was imprisoned for having killed a person. Her failure to immediately report the incidents was due to said threat. Thus, her delay or vacillation in making her criminal accusation against him does not impair her credibility as the same was not without reason.[47] It must be noted that it is not easy for a rape victim to decide whether to conceal her humiliation in secrecy or to bravely have the rapist punished, at the same time bearing the inevitable and consequent public ridicule and embarrassment.[48] Nor are we impressed with the accused-appellant's submission that Rea's testimony should not be believed because she testified that when he raped her, he did not remove his pants. Her testimony when read in its entirety clearly shows that what she intended to convey to the | |||||