This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-08-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, the cases of People v. Sanico,[76] People v. Banzuela,[77] Pielago v. People,[78] People v. Rayon, Sr.,[79] People v. Subesa,[80] People v. Anguac,[81] and Los Baños v. Pedro,[82] which were likewise cited by Justice Carpio, involve the issue that an Information only need to allege the ultimate facts, and not the specificity of the allegations contained in the information as to allow the accused to prepare for trial and make an intelligent plea.[83] | |||||
|
2015-08-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Ultimate facts is defined as “those facts which the expected evidence will support. The term does not refer to the details of probative matter or particulars of evidence by which these material elements are to be established.” It refers to the facts that the evidence will prove at the trial.[29] | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also known as "instrument or object rape,"[69] "gender-free rape,"[70] or "homosexual rape."[71] The gravamen of rape through sexual assault is "the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person's genital or anal orifice."[72] | |||||
|
2014-01-29 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We agree with the CA that "AAA's" "uncertainty" on whether it was a match, rod or a cigarette stick that was inserted into her private parts, did not lessen her credibility. Such "uncertainty" is so inconsequential and does not diminish the fact that an instrument or object was inserted into her private parts. This is the essence of rape by sexual assault. "[T]he gravamen of the crime of rape by sexual assault x x x is the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person's genital or anal orifice."[25] In any event, "inconsistencies in a rape victim's testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape."[26] We also held in People v. Piosang[27] that | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled in jurisprudence that denial, just like alibi, cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony and identification of an accused by the complainant and that mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely overcome the positive declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of appellant in the crime attributed to him.[26] | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the RTC's factual findings, as affirmed by the CA. It is doctrinally settled that factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[26] More importantly, this Court's assessment of the records of the case indicates no reversible error committed by the lower courts. AAA's testimony that she was raped by her uncle on February 21, 1997, around 1 o'clock in the afternoon is worthy of belief as it was clear, consistent and spontaneously given. There is no compelling reason to disbelieve AAA's declaration given that she was only five (5) years old when she was ravished and eight (8) years old when she testified in court. It has long been established that the testimony of a rape victim, especially a child of tender years, is given full weight and credit.[27] | |||||