This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Rape is a crime that is almost always committed in isolation or in secret, usually leaving only the victim to testify about the commission of the crime.[23] As such, the accused may be convicted of rape on the basis of the victim's sole testimony provided such testimony is logical, credible, consistent and convincing.[24] Moreover, the testimony of a young rape victim is given full weight and credence considering that her denunciation against him for rape would necessarily expose herself and her family to shame and perhaps ridicule.[25] Indeed, it is more consistent with human experience to hold that a rape victim of tender age will truthfully testify as to all matters necessary to show that she was raped.[26] | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, as intimated by the appellant, prosecutions involving illegal drugs largely depend on the credibility of police officers serving as prosecution witnesses.[16] When a case involves violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, "credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary."[17] In this regard and as this Court held in People v. Dela Cruz,[18] "the rule is that the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court[, because in such a case,] said findings are generally binding upon this Court." | |||||
|
2012-11-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The defense of appellant is anchored on denial and alibi which do not impress belief. As often stressed, "[m]ere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, has no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the positive testimony of a rape victim."[19] In this case, appellant's testimony, particularly his denial, was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Also, for his alibi to prosper, appellant must establish that he was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[20] Appellant failed to establish these elements. The fact that "AAA" was living with her grandparents did not preclude the possibility that appellant was present at the crime scenes during their commission. Appellant himself admitted that the distance between his residence and that of "AAA's" grandparents is only approximately 7½ kilometers and which can be traversed by riding a pedicab in less than 30 minutes.[21] In other words, it was not physically impossible for appellant to have been at the situs of the crimes during the dates when the separate acts of rape were committed. Moreover, it has been invariably ruled that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused. Here, appellant was positively identified by "AAA" as the perpetrator of the crimes without showing any dubious reason or fiendish motive on her part to falsely charge him. The contention of appellant that "AAA" was motivated by hatred because he prevented her from having a boyfriend is unconvincing. There is nothing novel in such a contrived defense. "Motives such as resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a rape victim."[22] It is a jurisprudentially conceded rule that "[i]t is against human nature for a young girl to fabricate a story that would expose herself as well as her family to a lifetime of shame, especially when her charge could mean the death or lifetime imprisonment of her own father."[23] | |||||
|
2012-09-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Neither does the lack of any form of injury or fresh hymenal lacerations negate the commission of rape. "[S]ettled is the doctrine that absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of rape."[14] Physical injuries[15] or hymenal lacerations[16] are not essential elements of rape. | |||||
|
2009-07-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It cannot be over-emphasized that the credibility of a rape victim is not diminished, let alone impaired, by minor inconsistencies in her testimony. Such inconsistencies are inconsequential when they refer to minor details that have nothing to do with the essential fact of the commission of the crime--carnal knowledge through force and intimidation. The alleged inconsistencies refer to minor details and are evidently beyond the essential fact of the commission of rape because they do not pertain to the actual sexual assault itself--that very moment when Wasit was forcing himself on AAA.[16] A weeping AAA had pointed to Wasit as the very person who defiled her. | |||||
|
2009-07-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the inconsistencies that Warlito faults AAA with are too minor to be considered. The date of the commission of the crime is not an element of the crime of rape and has no substantial bearing on its commission.[21] What is essential is that there be proof of carnal knowledge of a woman against her will.[22] And the testimony of AAA clearly proved that Warlito had raped her. She would not have been firm in her allegations had not the same really happened. | |||||
|
2008-12-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant harps on the alleged statements of the examining physician that there were no external injuries on AAA's body or that the laceration on her hymen could be caused by many factors. Case law has it that in view of the intrinsic nature of rape, the only evidence that can be offered to prove the guilt of the offender is the testimony of the offended party. Even absent a medical certificate, her testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis of conviction if such testimony is credible.[23] Moreover, the absence of external injuries does not negate rape.[24] In fact, even the absence of spermatozoa is not an essential element of rape. This is because in rape, the important consideration is not the emission of semen but the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ.[25] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is within the foregoing framework that courts have consistently assigned full weight and credit to the testimony of a child-complainant, for no woman, much less one of tender age, would broadcast a violation of her person, allow an examination of her flesh and endure a public trial of her remaining dignity, unless she is solely impelled by the desire for redress.[83] Thus, when her testimony is plausible, spontaneous, convincing and consistent with human nature and the ordinary course of things, it can indeed beget moral certainty of the guilt of her violator.[84] And what can overcome the weight of her testimony is inconsistency on the fact of carnal knowledge or any credible physical evidence of the lack of it.[85] But for as long as she remains steadfast in her testimony on the essential element of carnal knowledge, inconsistencies or discrepancies on any other detail will not impair, but rather buttress, the veracity of her testimony, for lapses in her recollection of peripheral details are only to be expected for she is made to relive a harrowing experience.[86] This rule holds especially true when the minor inconsistencies are between her sworn statements and testimony in open court for such discrepancies do not necessarily discredit her since ex-parte affidavits are almost always incomplete and therefore inferior to the testimony given in open court.[87] | |||||