Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 8, Davao City, dated March 22, 2011 in Criminal Case No. 51,366-03 is AFFIRMED but Modified as follows: The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed upon the accused-appellant shall be without eligibility [for] parole; The award of civil indemnity is increased to P75,000.00; and The award of moral damages is increased to P75,000.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 8, Davao City, dated March 22, 2011 in Criminal Case No. 51,366-03 is AFFIRMED but Modified as follows: The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed upon the accused-appellant shall be without eligibility [for] parole; The award of civil indemnity is increased to P75,000.00; and The award of moral damages is increased to P75,000.00. [20] The accused-appellant again appealed [21] his conviction before this Court, insisting on the argument he raised before the Court of Appeals that the court a quo gravely erred in convicting him despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [22] The accused-appellant avers that the prosecution neither proved the allegation of carnal knowledge nor established the required force or intimidation. He argues that AAA lied when she testified that he pointed a knife at her when he allegedly abused her, considering that she failed to allege the said fact in her complaint-affidavit. The accused-appellant also notes that in AAA's cross-examination, she said that she was medically examined at around 10:00 p.m. on March 2, 2003 after she went to the police station. However, the medical certificate submitted in evidence by the prosecution stated that she was examined on March 3, 2003. Likewise, the accused-appellant found it contrary to normal human experience that AAA was not awakened when the accused-appellant supposedly removed her pants and panty. Lastly, the accused-appellant points out that the medical certificate of AAA should not be given weight considering that the doctor who testified on the same was not the one who conducted the examination. The Ruling of the Court The Court denies the appeal, but modifies the indemnities awarded. Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of rape by sexual intercourse is defined as follows: ART. 266-A. Rape When and How Committed. - Rape is committed - 1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a. Through force, threat or intimidation; b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. For the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution has the burden to prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished the act through force, threat or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented. [23] In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling on the veracity of AAA's testimony. The Court finds no reason to overturn the factual findings of the lower courts. AAA consistently identified the accused-appellant as the perpetrator
G.R. No. 238622 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RANDY LICAROS Y FLORES, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 238622 -
CaseG.R. No. 225339 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V. xxxxxxxxxxx ACCUSED-.
G.R. No. 225339 -
CaseG.R. No. 208475 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MANUEL REBANUEL Y NADERA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 208475 -