This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-08-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is a well-entrenched principle that factual findings of the trial court are accorded great evidentiary weight and utmost respect by the mere fact of the unparalleled opportunity of observance and assessment of the demeanor of the witness firsthand to satisfactorily prove his credibility.[30] The RTC observed that the testimony of AAA is straightforward, graphic and spontaneous; whereas the accused-appellant simply denied the allegations against him. The act of crying while testifying on the gruesome incident that AAA had undergone supports the fact that crime indeed occurred.[31] Such kind of testimony is enough to convict the accused-appellant and supports the fact of commission of the crime.[32] The Rules on Evidence provide that positive testimonies prevail over mere denials and alibis.[33] | |||||
|
2010-01-26 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the Court does not look with favor on affidavits of retraction. Recanted testimony is highly questionable because it can be secured through monetary considerations. It is dangerous for courts to reject testimonies solemnly given before the courts of justice simply because the witnesses who made them change their minds later on. Such a rule would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses.[15] Here, the affidavit of retraction was precisely executed by AAA in exchange for financial assistance and land (which she never received). | |||||
|
2006-08-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Granting arguendo, that the second affidavit validly repudiated the first one, courts do not generally look with favor on any retraction or recanted testimony, for it could have been secured by considerations other than to tell the truth and would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of the truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses.[32] A recantation does not necessarily cancel an earlier declaration, but like any other testimony the same is subject to the test of credibility and should be received with caution.[33] | |||||
|
2004-01-14 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| "Q It penetrated but not completely is that what you mean? "A Yes, Your Honor."[10] The medical report that there have been "healed lacerations" found in the 3 and 8 o'clock hymenal positions would not refute the existence of rape. Proof of entry of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum is sufficient.[11] The full penetration of the victim's sex organ is not required to consummate the crime of rape. Neither is proof of hymenal laceration an element of rape.[12] In People v. Madronio,[13] the Court has said that the "presence of an old healed laceration on [the victim's] hymen does not negate the commission of rape," and that a "freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of the crime." Moreover, a medico-legal report is not indispensable in the prosecution of a rape case, it being merely corroborative in nature.[14] In this case, the medical report also reflects the fact that the victim has had "[n]o abrasions, hematoma and contusions" in "the vulva or in other parts of the body," that belie appellant's claim that he only "mauled" the victim with his bare hands, instead of sexually abusing her, that night of 22 April 1996. | |||||