beyond reasonable doubt of raping his 2daughters. He invoked that he was denied withdue process when the court convicted him asguilty beyond reasonable doubt even if the datepresented by his daughter was not the correctdate of the commission of the crime. Thus, suchadmissibility of mistake testimony violated hisright to due process. Does the accused right to
due process was violated?Answer:No. Clearly, the time of the commission of thecrime assumes importance only when it creates seriousdoubt as to the commission of the rape or the sufficiencyof the evidence for purposes of conviction. The date ofthe commission of the rape becomes relevant only whenthe accuracy and truthfulness of the complainant’snarration practically hinge on the date of the commissionof the crime. People v Cantomayor. Accused-appellantMarlonSarazanwasconvicted with 5 counts of rape with use of forceand intimidation. He feloniously have carnalknowledge with Rachel Dancillo Azares, a minor,9 years of age, without the consent and againstthe will of the latter. The accused-appellantasserted that his conviction deprived him of dueprocess. First, because the testimony of theminor is inconsistent and second, because aftermedical procedure the hymen was still intact.Does the inconsistency of the testimony violatedthe accused right of due process?Answer:No. When the credibility of witnesses is in issue,the trial court’s assessment is accorded great weightbecause it has the unique opportunity to hear thetestimony of witnesses and observe their deportmentand manner of testifying. Time and again, we haveconsistently ruled that when a woman, more so if aminor, states that she has been raped, she says in effectall that is necessary to show that rape was committed.For no woman, least of all a child, would weave a tale ofsexual assaults to her person, open herself toexamination of her private parts and later be subjectedto public trial or ridicule if she was not, in truth, a victimof rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong doneto her. Further, the fact that the hymen was intact uponexamination does not belie rape, for a broken hymen isnot an essential element of rape, nor does the fact thatthe victim has remained a virgin negate the crime. In aprosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance tobe considered is the occurrence of the rape. People vSarazan.Accused-appellant claimed that he was deprivedof due process when he was convicted with thecrime of rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.When the date used in stating the incident ofrape to Marciel Basones, 17 years old, was “July4, 1998” well in fact it occurred in “July 4, 1999”.Does the right of due process of the accusedviolated?Answer:No. Date is not an essential element of thecrime of rape, for the gravamen of the offense is carnalknowledge of the woman. The phrase “on or about July4, 1998” stated in the information gives the prosecutionsufficient latitude to prove any date which is not soremote as to surprise and prejudice the defendant. Thus,
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 68 pages?
- Fall '16
- Ulysses, Appellate court, Legal burden of proof, Trial court, Rights of the accused