This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2002-07-25 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Mr. Bernardo S. Ditan, Utility Worker II, Property Division, OAS be SUSPENDED for one (1) year without pay; and Mr. Jaime O. Mendoza, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Property Division, be directed within five (5) days from receipt of the resolution to cause the repair of the subject vehicle through the GSIS."[5] This Court understands that Ditan's act of driving the vehicle to Batangas was prompted by his desire to respond to the needs of his ailing father. However, his fault lies in the fact that he did not communicate to his office and ask permission to use the vehicle for such purpose. He had ample opportunity to do so, yet he failed. He admitted that the repair of the airconditioning unit of the vehicle was finished at 1:00 p.m. of the same day, October 15, 2001. Yet he did not return to this Court. Instead, he passed by his residence where he learned of the emergency call from Nasugbu concerning his father. At this point, he should have called up Mr. Gara or Mr. Mendoza or his officemates and informed them of his plan to assist his father. Again, when he was already in Nasugbu, he should have made such call. Clearly, by failing to ask permission from this Court before driving the vehicle to a place other than that specified in the Driver's Trip Ticket No. 4078 issued to him, Ditan committed neglect of duty. However, considering that he was then intensely worried about his | |||||
|
2002-07-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The failure of May Ann to give the specific date when the rape took place does not affect her credibility because the discrepancies refer to details which are not elements of the crime.[26] Moreover, May Ann had no motive to falsely testify against accused-appellant, who was a long time neighbor of and regarded as a relative by her family. As there is no evidence to show any improper motive for filing the rape case, May Ann's testimony must be accepted and given full faith and credit.[27] | |||||
|
2002-04-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to the award of damages, the trial court ordered appellant to pay the victim P50,000 as civil indemnity. In addition, appellant must pay moral damages in the amount of P50,000, in accordance with existing jurisprudence.[42] Further, by way of public example and to protect minors from sexual assault, the award of P25,000 as exemplary damages is also in order. | |||||
|
2002-02-13 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Nor is Mergie's statement regarding her educational attainment (that in March 1997, she was a first year high school student, which she later clarified during cross-examination to mean that she was then a grade VI student) of any consequence. There is little difference between the two statements. Likewise, the failure of Mergie to state in her sworn statement that the rapes were committed with the "use of a knife" did not render fatal the appreciation of this aggravating circumstance during the trial nor was it considered a discrepancy. What is necessary is that this fact was alleged in the information and duly proved during the trial. It is noteworthy that at some point during her testimony, Mergie broke down and cried.[30] Her emotional conditions is evidence of the veracity of her claim.[31] Otherwise, both Mergie and Zenaida remained steadfast throughout their testimonies despite being subjected to intense and lengthy interrogation.[32] Thus, the perceived discrepancies in the testimonies of the two complainants are inconsequential. Indeed, inconsistencies of this nature can be expected of young girls who are required to recall their harrowing experiences.[33] They tend to buttress, rather than weaken, their credibility, since they indicated that the testimony was not contrived.[34] Indeed, victims of rape hardly retain in their memories the dates, number of times, and manner they were violated. There is greater reason for believing such testimonies when corroborated by medical findings of hymenal lacerations. | |||||
|
2002-02-06 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| All told, Mary Ann's testimony, corroborated by the results of the medical examination conducted upon her, is clear and credible. We find no sufficient reason to disturb the findings of the lower court and adhere to the well-settled rule that findings of the trial court are generally considered final and accorded great weight, given their advantage of observing the manner and demeanor of the witnesses as they testified in court.[28] The denial of the accused deserves scant consideration as it is inherently a weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the victim.[29] We find the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. | |||||
|
2002-01-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Gina has positively and steadfastly and unrelentingly claimed that after the effects of the drug had taken on her and she lay down on the beds put together in the boy's room, Giovan lay alongside her and forcibly kissed her with his tongue inside her mouth, kissed her breasts and inserted his index and middle fingers into her vagina followed by Bryan having sexual intercourse with her and just to prevent Bryan from penetrating her further, she did oral sex on him.[23] Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The agreement may be deduced from the manner in which the offense was committed. It must be shown that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony.[24] | |||||