This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2002-03-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Q: Also did you not see anyone of them getting the money from the cashier desk because it was dark? A: I do not know anymore for as long as these two persons were the ones who were there and I am so sure of that. Oh God! Justice will be given to me! (Witness went hysterical)[12] We now go into the alleged discrepancy between the Sinumpaang Salaysay and the testimony of Mitos M. Panis. To this we must defer for indeed Mitos clearly declared in her Sinumpaang Salaysay that no one else other than Ernesto Cariño entered the kitchen that evening and that it was he alone who stabbed her father-in-law Romeo V. Panis, which is highly in contrast to her testimony in court that Goyeto Cariño likewise went inside the kitchen and joined the foray.[13] In addition, while omitting details on Emmanuel's stabbing and the identity of his assailant in her Sinumpaang Salaysay, Mitos conspicuously relayed in court that she saw Ernesto stab Emmanuel repeatedly. We are aware of the legal principle that inconsistencies between an affidavit/sworn statement and a declaration made in open court do not necessarily damage an offended party's credibility, being generally incomplete or even inaccurate and thus are not final repositories of truth.[14] But it should be noted that affidavits/sworn statements more often than not approximate the truth as they vividly unveil the details in an event yet unmarred by man's traitorous memory. Hence, insofar as Goyeto's participation in the stabbing of Romeo was concerned, we consider Mitos' testimony unreliable as it was dubious if not totally untrue. | |||||
|
2001-01-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's claim that he and the private complainant are sweethearts deserve scant consideration. Other than his bare assertions, accused-appellant adduced no independent proof that he was the sweetheart of the victim. This defense was neither corroborated by any other witness nor substantiated by any memento, picture or token.[45] This claim is further negated by the behavior of the victim at the time of the commission of the offense where she was found bloodied, disoriented and babbling incoherently by responding policemen.[46] If at all, her conduct and condition spell finis to any pretension that the sexual act was consensual. Further, private complainant denied having any such relationship with accused-appellant[47] and she remained unwavering even under intense grilling by defense counsel.[48] | |||||
|
2000-03-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Ervie had been paralyzed by fear due to the continuous threat made by the accused against her life and personal safety. "Though a man lays no hand on a woman, yet if by an array of physical forces, he so overpowers her mind that she does not resist, or she ceases resistance through fear of a greater harm, the consummation of the sexual act is recognized in jurisprudence as rape."[48] "She was too intimidated to offer serious resistance to the advances of appellant."[49] | |||||
|
2000-02-16 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The perceived contradictions in the testimonies of Delia and the other prosecution witnesses refer only to minor matters that do not touch upon the commission of the crime itself. Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses when referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Although there may be inconsistencies on minor details, the same do not impair the credibility of the witnesses[10] where, as in this case, there is no inconsistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant.[11] The failure of Delia to recall some details of the crime, instead of suggesting prevarication, precisely indicates spontaneity and is to be expected from a witness who is of tender age and unaccustomed to court proceedings.[12] "A rapist cannot expect the hapless object of his lechery to have the memory of an elephant and the cold precision of a mathematician because total recall of an incident is not expected of a witness especially if it is the victim herself who is on the witness stand."[13] | |||||