This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-08-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and, unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim, who in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified the appellant who sexually molested her.[50] For alibi to prosper, the accused must show that it was impossible for him to have been at the scene of the commission of the crime at the time of its commission.[51] | |||||
|
2009-08-24 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In contrast, the evidence presented by the defense consisted mainly of bare denials. Denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense. Unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim,[24] who, in a simple and straightforward manner, convincingly identified the appellant as the one who had sexually molested her in the afternoon of 26 June 2001. | |||||
|
2009-02-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In contrast, the evidence presented by the defense consisted mainly of bare denials and alibi. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses; unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim,[32] who in a simple and straightforward manner convincingly identified the appellant who sexually molested her at midnight of 13 January 2000. Further, for the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be sufficiently convincing as to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the incident.[33] The appellant in this case admitted that his residence was just 30 houses away from that of AAA;[34] thus, it was not physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the rape incident. More so, appellant's defenses of denial and alibi run counter to his own argument that what happened between him and AAA was consensual sex. | |||||
|
2008-03-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As can be gleaned from the records of this case, this Court notes that the testimony given by AAA before the trial court can be characterized as categorical and straightforward. She was able to describe before the court a quo how she was ravished by the appellant on 30 December 1999 and 3 January 2000. She even demonstrated the sexual act by spreading her two legs and placing her finger to her vagina.[36] And during her testimony, she positively identified the appellant as the person who had raped her on the aforesaid dates.[37] The straightforward narration of AAA of what transpired, accompanied by her categorical identification of appellant as the malefactor, sealed the case for the prosecution.[38] Further, it was not shown that she had been motivated by any ill desire that would make her testify falsely against the accused. Moreover, having the mental age of a five-year-and-three-month-old child would even bolster her credibility as a witness considering that a victim at such tender age would not publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished unless that was the truth. For no woman, especially one of tender age, practically only a girl, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter expose herself to a public trial, if she were not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished to avenge her honor and to condemn a grave injustice to her.[39] | |||||
|
2008-02-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It bears emphasis that the competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been upheld by this Court where it was shown that they could communicate their ordeal capably and consistently. Rather than undermine the gravity of the complainant's accusations, it even lends greater credence to her testimony, as someone feeble-minded and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on the details of the rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the hands of the accused.[49] Besides, having the mental age level of a six-year-and-six-month-old normal child would even bolster her credibility as a witness, considering that a victim at such tender age would not publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished unless that was the truth. For no woman, especially one of tender age, practically only a girl, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter expose herself to a public trial, if she were not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished to avenge her honor and to condemn a grave injustice to her.[50] | |||||