This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2008-10-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Considering the number of times AAA, a girl of tender age, was subjected to the pervert desire of her own father, the Court finds as minor details, which are not of great significance as to affect AAA's credibility as a witness, her testimony regarding her companion/s and the exact time when she was raped, the person/s to whom she revealed her traumatic experience, the number of houses the family owned, the number of rooms in the house where she was raped, and the condition then prevailing inside the culvert where one of the rape incidents took place. It is settled that inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, when referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the substance of their declarations, their veracity, or the weight of their testimonies, and do not impair the credibility of such witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the assailant. In fact, honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters serve to strengthen rather than destroy the credibility of a witness to a crime, especially so when the crime is shocking to the conscience and numbing to the senses.[11] We have ruled in numerous cases that an errorless recollection of a harrowing incident cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details of an experience so humiliating and so painful as rape.[12] This is especially true in this case, in which the victim was an innocent 13-year-old girl who has been sexually ravished within a span of seven (7) successive months. What is important is that the victim's declarations, both in her sworn statement and her testimony in court, are consistent on basic matters constituting the elements of the crime of rape and the positive identification of the accused-appellant by AAA. | |||||
|
2005-09-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Unfortunately for petitioner, Rep. Act No. 9286 is silent as to the retroactivity of the law to pending cases and must, therefore, be taken to be of prospective application. The general rule is that in an amendatory act, every case of doubt must be resolved against its retroactive effect.[32] Since the retroactive application of a law usually divests rights that have already become vested,[33] the rule in statutory construction is that all statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation unless the purpose and intention of the legislature to give them a retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used.[34] | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Witnesses cannot be expected to remember all the details of the harrowing event which unfolded before their eyes. Minor discrepancies might be found in their testimony, but they do not damage the essential integrity of the evidence in its material whole, nor should they reflect adversely on the witness' credibility as they erase suspicion that the same was perjured.[18] Honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters serve to strengthen rather than destroy the credibility of a witness to a crime, especially so when, as in the instant case, the crime is shocking to the conscience and numbing to the senses.[19] | |||||
|
2000-12-04 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant admitted that at the time in question he was with his wife, son and fellow members of the Jehovah's Witnesses at the house of one Eulalio Nisnisan supposedly attending Bible studies, which is merely fifteen (15) to fifty (50) meters away from the crime scene. Considering the short and insignificant distance, it was not impossible for accused-appellant to surreptitiously slip away from the house of Nisnisan, commit the crime and then return without arousing the suspicion of his companions who were then busy with their Bible session. This is obviously the situation in this case and, taken together with the preceding considerations, we likewise reject this poor and discredited defense as did the trial court. Verily, even if the defense of alibi is corroborated by the testimony of the friends of accused-appellant, it deserves the barest consideration and will not be given weight if it would not preclude any doubt that he could have been physically present at the locus criminis or its immediate vecino at the time of its commission.[22] | |||||
|
2000-10-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Q: What took you [so] long? A: Because he warned us that if the incident will be revealed, all of us will be killed.[38] While there indeed may be a conflict in the statements of Pacita on this point, the contradiction as can be seen in the foregoing excerpts is more apparent then real. It, in fact, reveals that Pacita's testimonial declarations stemmed from confusion and emotional stress as a result of testifying on a sensitive matter and not from a deliberate attempt to twist the truth. Be that as it may, the contradiction, if at all, refers to a minor and insignificant detail which hardly dents Pacita's credibility as a witness. To be sure, honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters serve to strengthen rather than destroy the credibility of a witness to a crime, especially when the crime is shocking to the conscience and numbing to the senses.[39] | |||||
|
2000-02-17 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| With respect to GALLARDE's claim that he was arrested without warrant, suffice it to say that any objection, defect, or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea.[43] The records show no objection was ever interposed prior to arraignment and trial.[44] GALLARDE's assertion that he was denied due process by virtue of his alleged illegal arrest is negated by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court, as manifested by the voluntary and counsel-assisted plea he entered during arraignment and by his active participation in the trial thereafter.[45] It is settled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived.[46] It is much too late in the day to complain about the warrantless arrest after a valid information had been filed and the accused arraigned and trial commenced and completed and a judgment of conviction rendered against him.[47] Verily, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after trial free from error; such arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused.[48] | |||||
|
2000-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| First. Appellants are estopped from questioning the validity of their respective arrests since they never raised this issue before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived.[15] | |||||