Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. RICKY BANELA Y ARCEGA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 167755 2008-11-28	PEOPLE v. NESTOR VELUZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Q. Did he stay long on top of you? A. Yes sir.[26] (Emphasis supplied) As a rule, testimonies of child victims of rape are given full weight and credit, for youth and immaturity are badges of truth.[27] Generally, when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. And so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility and unless the same is controverted by competent physical and testimonial evidence, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[28]
	GR No. 171348 2008-11-26	PEOPLE v. LARRY ERGUIZA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Generally, when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. And so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility and unless the same is controverted by competent physical and testimonial evidence, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.[32]
	GR No. 170569 2008-09-30	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO MATEO Y DIZON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In any event, the prosecution presented adequate evidence which showed that the appellant used force and intimidation in committing the crime of rape, and which the RTC relied upon in convicting appellant. The absence of evidence of any improper motive on the part of AAA to testify as principal witness of the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive existed at the time she testified and her testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[59]
	GR No. 147033 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. MARIO UMAYAM PANGANIBAN, J.
In this case, since there is no showing of any improper motive on the part of the victim to falsely testify against or implicate the accused in the commission of the crime, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.[60] Indeed, it is most unlikely for a young girl to impute the crime of rape to no less than a close relative and to face social humiliation therefor, if not to vindicate her honor.[61]
	GR No. 128720 2002-01-23	S & SGT. ELMER T. VERGARA v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
In this case, petitioner has been convicted on the basis of the positive identification made by private complainant below. As the Court of Appeals stressed, petitioner was categorically identified by the private complainant not just once, but twice, as one of the armed men who robbed her. The first time was during the police line-up of nine (9) persons on October 27, 1990 and the second time was during her testimony in open court. The records show that private complainant had no motive to falsely testify against petitioner. We agree with the lower courts that the discrepancies in the private complainant's description are not decisive. Her description was based on visual estimates, which cannot be expected to be perfect. What is decisive is that petitioner was positively and categorically identified as one of the robbers, not just once but twice, by private complainant, Catherine Manalo. Her recollection of his description might suffer from imperfection regarding his height, weight and personal appearance. But we note less. Jurisprudence recognizes that victims of crime have a penchant for seeing the faces and features of their attackers, and remembering them.[9] That some variance as to petitioner's height and weight might exist in her recollection, in comparison to his statistical measurement does not destroy her credibility. That the trial court found this variance inconsequential does not render its findings on the credibility of witnesses erroneous. Such findings are accorded great respect and will be sustained by the appellate courts unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could alter the decision or affect the result of the case.[10] Here, the important thing is that complaining witness Catherine Manalo identified the petitioner as one of the perpetrators of the robbery twice, without any presumptions or suggestion from the police at the line-up or the court at the trial.