Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 171452 2008-10-17	PEOPLE v. RICARDO SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Neither is the soiled undergarment or clothing material to the case for it is not the presence or absence of blood thereon that determines the fact of rape.[64] Thus, the absence of this piece of evidence casts no doubt on the testimony of AAA that appellant raped her.
	GR No. 137841 2001-10-01	PEOPLE v. VS.ALBERTO CHUA PUNO, J.
x x x. The perpetrator takes full advantage of his blood relationship, ascendancy and influence over his victim, both to commit the sexual assault and to intimidate the victim into silence. Unfortunately for some perpetrators of incestuous rape, their victims manage to break out from the cycle of fear and terror. x x x."[29]
	GR No. 128617 2001-06-20	PEOPLE v. CESAR BACUS Y VILLAHERMOSA MENDOZA, J.
Third. The trial court correctly held that the alibi given by accused-appellant as well as that of his two other witnesses, Belinda Bacus and Andrea Gabayan, that he was at home doing household chores cannot prevail over the positive identification made by Fe Claros.[34] For alibi to prosper as a defense, the accused must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but he must also show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.[35] In the case of accused-appellant, this physical impossibility has not been established.