Title
People vs. Cutamora
Case
G.R. No. 133448-53
Decision Date
Oct 6, 2000
Two brothers accused of raping three nieces from 1989-1993; denied charges but trial and Supreme Court confirmed guilt, sentenced to life imprisonment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 30724)

Charges and Allegations

TheInformations accuse Roselindo and Allan Cutamora of raping their nieces, with specific details outlining the incidents. Virginia was assaulted repeatedly from ages seven to eleven, Gina from six to eight, and Beatriz from ten to thirteen. The charges cited the acts as being conducted unlawfully and with violence, often under threats that the victims' lives would be in danger if they reported the incidents.

Trial Proceedings and Defense

Upon entering a plea of not guilty, the trial commenced, during which the prosecution presented substantive evidence, including the testimonies of the victims. In contrast, the accused maintained that the accusations were baseless and claimed they were at their farm during the alleged incidents. However, the court found the evidence from the victims compelling.

Assessment of Credibility

The trial court evaluated the testimonies, emphasizing the credibility of child victims in such sensitive cases. The court noted that the victims, being minors at the time of the incidents, provided detailed accounts of their traumatic experiences, which were corroborated by medical examinations indicating physical evidence of sexual assault.

Legal Analysis of Informations

The accused argued the informations were insufficient due to vague dates and descriptions of the crimes. The Supreme Court indicated that the allegations in the informations meet the requirements set forth in Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, noting that the approximate time and place of the offenses were adequately stated. Furthermore, the court addressed that an exact date is not critical in rape cases, particularly given the trauma suffered by the victims.

Findings of Guilt

The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt against both accused-appellants. It asserted that the trial court's assessment of witness credibility was binding, particularly since it was based on direct observations of the witnesses’ demeanor. It also noted the improbability of the victims fabricating such serious allegations against their relatives, reinforcing the legal presumption of truthfulness in child testimony.

Sentencing and Damages

Both accused were sentenced to three separate penalties of reclusion perpetua. They were al

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.