This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The prosecution's case against Besmonte is founded on Melanie's familiarity with him. If she was not at all familiar with appellant Besmonte, the prosecution's whole case against him collapses, for such familiarity was its very foundation. In the instant case, it was not disputed that Melanie had lived in the same house with Besmonte for almost four years prior to the incident. In fact, Besmonte himself testified that he had treated her like a daughter and was even responsible for her schooling. [56] Thus, the basis for her identification was her long familiarity with Besmonte. She pointed to him because she knew him well prior to the sexual assault. Melanie was familiar with his body smell. No doubt she could perceive and recognize that smell at the time of sexual contact. At that time, private complainant was as close to Besmonte as was physically possible, for a man and a woman could not be physically closer to each other than during a sexual act.[57] Moreover, the victim did not solely rely upon her sense of smell in identifying her ravisher. She emphatically declared in open court that she also recognized Besmonte from his voice [58] when he uttered threatening words to her in the dark. It is highly inconceivable that complainant would not recognize Besmonte's voice, having lived with him for quite some time. The sound of the voice of a person is an acceptable means of identification where it is established that the witness and the accused knew each other personally and closely for a number of years.[59] | |||||
|
2003-01-28 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| "4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the courts shall reasonable allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation." The prosecution failed to establish any aggravating circumstance. While nighttime was alleged in the Informations, it does not appear that it was purposely sought by or afforded some degree of impunity to appellant.[54] The mere fact that the rape was committed at nighttime with nothing more than that does not make nocturnity an aggravating circumstance.[55] Neither can the alleged abuse of superior strength be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. No proof was offered that superior strength was deliberately taken advantage of.[56] | |||||