This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2007-09-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Also unavailing is appellant's argument that the lack of medical certificate and of the testimony of the examining physician as regards AAA's physical injuries should be taken against the prosecution. A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape and a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape.[30] Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction.[31] An accused can still be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the private complainant.[32] It is in the nature of the crime of rape that an accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided that her testimony is clear, positive, and convincing.[33] In the present case, the prosecution, through the testimony of AAA, has shown that appellant had carnal knowledge of his own daughter against her will. Said testimony is worthy of credence and is enough to sustain his conviction. | |||||
|
2007-03-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As for accused-appellant's claim that the charge of rape was not corroborated by the result of the physical examination conducted by Dr. Luna, suffice it to state here that for a conviction of rape, it is not necessary that the same be supported by medical findings of injuries as proof of injuries is not an essential element of the crime.[43] An accused can still be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the private complainant.[44] In the present case, the prosecution was able to prove, through AAA's testimony, that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her against her will and consent. As we find her testimony to be free of material prevarication, we find the same sufficient to sustain accused-appellant's conviction. | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape and a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape.[48] Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to conviction.[49] An accused can still be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the private complainant.[50] In the instant case, the prosecution, through the testimony of the victim, has shown that appellant had carnal knowledge of her stepdaughter against her will and consent. We find her testimony to be worthy of credence, which by itself, is sufficient to convict accused-appellant. | |||||
|
2006-08-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape and a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape.[38] Medical evidence is not indispensable; an accused can still be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the private complainant.[39] In the instant case, the prosecution, through the testimony of the victim, has shown to this court that rape has been consummated. We find her testimony to be worthy of credence, which by itself, is sufficient to convict accused-appellant. | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellants' defense of alibi was indeed weak, since their alibis were corroborated only by their relatives and friends, and it was not shown that it was impossible for them to be at the place of the incident. However, the rule that an accused must satisfactorily prove his alibi was never intended to change or shift the burden of proof in criminal cases. It is basic that the prosecution evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[46] Unless the prosecution overturns the constitutional presumption of innocence of an accused by competent and credible evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption remains.[47] There being no sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt pointing to appellants as the perpetrators of the crime, appellants' presumed innocence stands. | |||||