This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-09-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Contrary, however, to appellant's impression that rape could not have been committed due to the confined space and the presence of "AAA's" siblings, suffice it to state that rape is not a respecter of place and time. It has been long recognized that "rape is not impossible even if committed in the same room where the rapist's spouse was sleeping, or in a small room where other [household] members [were also sleeping]."[13] In this light, rape in this case was not an impossibility even if "AAA's" siblings were not awakened from their deep slumber. | |||||
|
2011-06-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Neither is it improbable for appellant to employ such criminal design in the presence of his (appellant) own family especially when overcome by lust. "It is a common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby." [24] "[L]ust is no respecter of time and place." [25] As established, "AAA" was silenced by appellant's threat of killing her with a knife. [26] Thus, the reason for "AAA's" failure to shout or cry for help is because she was overcame by fear. It has been held that minors, like "AAA", could be easily intimidated and cowed into silence even by the mildest threat against their lives. [27] | |||||
|
2004-02-13 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| A thorough review of the records convinces us that the trial court did not err in convicting Fausto of the nine counts of rape. The fact of statutory rapes, i.e., the carnal knowledge of a woman under twelve years of age, has been indubitably established and corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Abas.[27] The records glaringly speak of Janet's candid, straightforward, and sincere testimony thereon. The veracity of her story of defloration and her credibility as a witness have been unassailed. They are even bolstered by her honesty in admitting that Fausto was not able to succeed in raping her on 24 September 1995 as alleged in the information docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-0097. | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The fact that the mother, who was beside private complainant in bed during the rape, was not awakened is not improbable. It is a common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby.[40] We have frequently held that rape is not impossible even if committed in the same room where the rapist's spouse or other family members are sleeping.[41] It is neither impossible nor incredible for them to remain in deep slumber and not to be awakened while the sexual assault is being committed. | |||||
|
2002-10-10 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| be at the crime scene. Just like denial, alibi is an inherently weak defense; and unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim.[52] We have also held that when alibi is established only by the accused, his relatives, or close friends, the same should be treated with strictest scrutiny.[53] Carlito, who was admittedly a close friend of appellant's parents, corroborated PRUNA's testimony that he (PRUNA) was in his house during the time that LIZETTE was raped. It is, however, an established fact that the place where the rape occurred was just a few meters away | |||||
|
2002-01-30 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A: Many times already. Q: How old were you when he first molested you? ATTY. ESCALONA: Your Honor, we object to that . . . . COURT: Witness may answer WITNESS: Eight (8) years old."[16] We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court upholding AAA's credibility. We have repeatedly held that the trial court's assessment on credibility must be respected, unless the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance.[17] In this case, the trial court carefully observed and found AAA's demeanor to be "positive, unequivocal, and unrelenting" in charging her own father with rape.[18] | |||||