Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 374 views

    People Vs Diopita

    Uploaded by

    Ronnie Rimando
    Rafael Diopita was convicted of raping Dominga Pikit-pikit. He claimed an alibi that he was at a Bible study at the time of the crime. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that Diopita's previous good moral character and position as a "Ministerial Servant" in his faith did not guarantee he could not commit such a crime. The Court ruled that religiosity alone does not prove good conduct and innocence, and an accused is not entitled to acquittal solely due to previous character. It affirmed the conviction was sufficiently proven by evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Diopita

    Uploaded by

    Ronnie Rimando
    374 views1 page
    Rafael Diopita was convicted of raping Dominga Pikit-pikit. He claimed an alibi that he was at a Bible study at the time of the crime. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that Diopita's previous good moral character and position as a "Ministerial Servant" in his faith did not guarantee he could not commit such a crime. The Court ruled that religiosity alone does not prove good conduct and innocence, and an accused is not entitled to acquittal solely due to previous character. It affirmed the conviction was sufficiently proven by evidence.

    Original Description:

    Evidence

    Original Title

    People vs Diopita

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rafael Diopita was convicted of raping Dominga Pikit-pikit. He claimed an alibi that he was at a Bible study at the time of the crime. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that Diopita's previous good moral character and position as a "Ministerial Servant" in his faith did not guarantee he could not commit such a crime. The Court ruled that religiosity alone does not prove good conduct and innocence, and an accused is not entitled to acquittal solely due to previous character. It affirmed the conviction was sufficiently proven by evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    374 views1 page

    People Vs Diopita

    Uploaded by

    Ronnie Rimando
    Rafael Diopita was convicted of raping Dominga Pikit-pikit. He claimed an alibi that he was at a Bible study at the time of the crime. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that Diopita's previous good moral character and position as a "Ministerial Servant" in his faith did not guarantee he could not commit such a crime. The Court ruled that religiosity alone does not prove good conduct and innocence, and an accused is not entitled to acquittal solely due to previous character. It affirmed the conviction was sufficiently proven by evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    130601 December 4, 2000


    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAFAEL DIOPITA y GUZMAN, accused-appellant.

    FACTS:

    Dominga Pikit-pikit was on her way home from work when suddenly a man appeared from behind, looped
    his arm around her neck and warned her not to shout or else she would die. The man dragged her through
    the banana plantation towards the cornfields. Dominga got a good look at the man, who turned out to be
    Rafael Diopita, as he sat on her thighs and proceeded to divest her of her belongings. Thereafter, Diopita
    announced his desire to have carnal knowledge of Dominga. After having his way with her, Diopita
    threatened Dominga not to tell anyone about the incident or else he would shoot her.

    Dominga was able to report the incident to the police and gave the description of the suspect and his
    possible whereabouts. A colored white/yellow, size 10 slipper was found in the scene of the crime. In a
    police line-up, Dominga readily pointed to Diopita which was further bolstered by the fact that when the
    police had him try the slipper, it easily fitted him. In his defense, Diopita posed the alibi that he was at an
    informal Bible session of the Jehovah’s Witnesses at the time of the crime.

    The trial court convicted Diopita stating that alibi is a weak form of defense. Among Diopita’s arguments
    is that it was impossible for him to have committed the crime charged since he is a person of good moral
    character, holding as he does the position of “Ministerial Servant” in the congregation of Jehovah’s
    Witnesses, and that he is a godly man, a righteous person, a responsible family man and a good Christian
    who preaches the word of God.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Diopita is entitles to an acquittal simply because of his previous good moral character and
    exemplary conduct.

    RULING:

    The conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court , ratiocinating that the fact that Diopita is endowed
    with such "sterling" qualities hardly justifies the conclusion that he is innocent of the crime charged.
    Similarly, his having attained the position of "Ministerial Servant" in his faith is no guarantee against any
    sexual perversion and plunderous proclivity on his part.

    Indeed, religiosity is not always an emblem of good conduct, and it is not the unreligious alone who
    succumbs to the impulse to rob and rape. An accused is not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his
    previous good moral character and exemplary conduct.

    The affirmance or reversal of his conviction must be resolved on the basic issue of whether the
    prosecution had discharged its duty of proving his guilt beyond any peradventure of doubt. Since the
    evidence of the crime in the instant case is more than sufficient to convict, the evidence of good moral
    character of accused-appellant is unavailing.

    You might also like