This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-12-10 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the inconsistencies in "AAA's" statements are trivial matters that do not involve the essential elements of the crime. It has been held "that inconsistencies on matters of minor details do not detract from the actual fact of rape."[17] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Additionally, the issue of credibility of witnesses is to be resolved primarily by the trial court because it is in the better position to assess the credibility of witnesses as it heard the testimonies and observed the deportment and manner of testifying of the witnesses. Accordingly, its findings are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the result of the case.[94] | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In the present case, evidence confirms the use of deadly weapon (a knife) during the commission of the offense, this should be a qualifying circumstance that would raise the imposable penalty to reclusion perpetua to death. We cannot, however, recognize this circumstance as qualifying. When the law or rules specify certain circumstances that can aggravate an offense, or circumstances that would attach to the offense a greater penalty than that ordinarily prescribed, such circumstances must be both alleged and proved to justify the imposition of the increased penalty.[71] When a circumstance is not so alleged, it cannot affect the penalty and the corresponding civil liabilities in line with our ruling in People v. Nuguid[72] and People v. Sagarino.[73] | |||||
|
2004-02-13 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We, however, do not agree with the Solicitor General's opinion that relationship should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of imposing the death penalty. People v. Baldino, the case invoked by the Solicitor General, appreciated relationship as an aggravating circumstance but only for the purpose of assessing exemplary damages against the accused and not for the purpose of imposing the death penalty. Two recent cases, People v. Sagarino[47] and People v. Umbaסa,[48] squarely address the issue raised by the Solicitor General. | |||||
|
2003-08-06 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Q: Do you want your father to die? A: Yes, sir."[29] Certainly, such statements could only be expressed by an aggrieved daughter who values the sanctity of her womanhood more than the life of his father. We have held that a rape victim's testimony is entitled to great weight especially when she accuses her own father or a close relative of having ravished her.[30] For there can be ascribed no greater motivation for a woman abused by her own kin than that innate yearning of the human spirit to declare the truth to obtain justice.[31] | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| We agree with appellant that People vs. Sagarino[112] finds application in the case at bar. We there stated:We now come to the propriety of the penalties imposed on appellant. Section 11 of Republic Act 7659, which amended article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua when the rape was committed with force and intimidation. But the imposable penalty becomes reclusion perpetua to death whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon. Such is the situation in Criminal Case Nos. 98-551 and 98-552 because the use of a knife or a bladed weapon by appellant in the consummation of the two rapes has been alleged and proved. | |||||
|
2002-11-27 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| itself be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[16] At best, appellant can be held criminally liable only for acts of lasciviousness. This latter crime is considered an offense included or subsumed in the rape charge.[17] | |||||
|
2002-05-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Although the prosecution has proven that Lazel was sexually abused, the evidence proffered is inadequate to prove she was raped x x x x Accused-appellant is not, however, off the hook. The prosecution proved the crime of forcible abduction. It established that accused-appellant took Lazel against her will and with lewd designs. The word "lewd" is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, lascivious, lecherous. It signifies that form of immorality which has relation to moral impurity; or that which is carried on in a wanton manner. The medico-legal finding and Lazel's testimony although insufficient to prove rape, buttress the conclusion that accused-appellant had lewd designs when he abducted Lazel. Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code defines and punishes forcible abduction x x x x IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision convicting accused-appellant of forcible abduction with rape is modified. Accused-appellant is convicted for forcible abduction and is sentenced to suffer 12 years of prision mayor to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal and to pay the victim P30,000.00 as moral damages. No costs. Significantly, we cannot consider any aggravating circumstance since under Sec. 8 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, effective 1 December 2000 but applicable to the instant case,[77] the complaint or information must not only state the designation of the offense given by statute and aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, but also "specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances." The Information against accused-appellant does not specify any of the circumstances which would have aggravated the offense charged or its penalty. | |||||