This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2006-11-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Neither does AAA's failure to tell her mother about the incident nor her long delay in reporting the matter to the authorities negate rape. As correctly observed by the OSG, the delay in reporting the rape incident does not weaken the case for the prosecution. It is not uncommon for a young girl to conceal assaults on her virtue, especially when the rapist is living with her.[55] In fact, we have previously ruled in People v. Coloma,[56] that even a delay of 8 years is not a sign of fabrication. | |||||
|
2001-05-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Alibi and denial, which are the defenses interposed by accused-appellants, are the weakest of all defenses[31] and must fail given the straightforward, candid and positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.[32] Besides, the rule is that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great respect. The court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand.[33] In fact, the trial court noted the deportment of the prosecution witnesses and hailed their manner of testifying as "straightforward...devoid of any embellishment or exaggerations."[34] Anent the trial court's decision, "The reliability and veracity of their (prosecution witnesses') testimonies cannot be suspect."[35] | |||||
|
2000-10-11 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| It is the trial court and not this Court that had the opportunity to observe Elizer's manner of testifying, his furtive glances, his calmness, sighs or the scant or full realization of his oath.[47] The trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to respect.[48] | |||||
|
2000-08-09 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| ran away from her house shows an unwillingness to live with her own father which bolsters her claim of repeated sexual abuse by him.[35] That she ceased to resist accused-appellant's advances does not necessarily mean that she voluntarily agreed to have sex with her father. "Where resistance would be futile, offering none at all cannot amount to consent to the sexual assault."[36] This rings especially true in the case of accused-appellant who, being the father, has moral ascendancy over his victim stemming from his parental authority over her and the latter's correlative duty to obey and observe reverence and respect towards him.[37] A rape victim's testimony charging a close relative with having raped her, such as a complaint filed by a daughter against her own father, is entitled to great weight.[38] We see no reason to doubt the veracity of the testimonies of these two young | |||||
|
2000-07-24 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| described Adelina's manner of testifying as "straight forward" and "unflinching".[33] Any inconsistency in Adelina's testimony was trivial (a "small matter") and excusable given the lapse of time from the time the crimes were committed to the time of testifying.[34] Second, the trial court found the testimonies of both accused-appellants unbelievable and contradictory. While Antonio testified that he personally knew Aredidon, Aredidon denied knowing Antonio and even feigned inability to identify him in court.[35] Third, Adelina's positive identification of accused-appellants prevails over their defense of alibi. Fourth, even if Adelina was indeed a prostitute, that does not mean that she was not raped. The victim's character and previous sexual relations are immaterial in rape.[36] The settled rule is that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great respect. The court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand.[37] | |||||
|
2000-02-16 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Neither is the absence of spermatozoa in Delia's genitalia fatal to the prosecution's case. The presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial in a prosecution for rape. The important consideration in rape cases is not the emission of semen but the unlawful penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ.[14] | |||||
|
2000-02-16 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We thus affirm the findings of the trial court on the credibility of Delia's narration of her defilement not only because of the settled rule that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great respect on appeal because it had the opportunity to observe the witness' demeanor and deportment while testifying, but more so because it is unnatural and highly improbable that a young girl would come out with such serious accusation, risking not only her honor and reputation but her family's as well.[17] Delia was only nine (9) years old when she was raped. At such tender age, she could not be expected to weave with uncanny recollection such a complicated tale as the sexual assault that accused-appellant unconscionably perpetrated on her.[18] The revelation of an innocent child, like Delia, whose chastity was abused deserves full credit, as the willingness of the complainant to face police investigation and to undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial is eloquent testimony of the truth of her complaint.[19] Thus, testimonies of rape victims who are of tender age demand full credence.[20] "Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity."[21] And the credibility of a rape victim is augmented when, as in this case, she has no malevolent motive to testify against the accused-appellant or where there is absolutely no evidence which even remotely suggests that she could have been actuated by such motive.[22] | |||||