This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2008-10-06 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Considering that private complainant was 9 years old at the time the first rape was allegedly committed and was 10 years old during the second and third rape incidents, the three counts of rape fall under paragraph 3 of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Carnal knowledge of a girl under 12 years old is statutory rape.[20] Consent of the offended party is immaterial as she is presumed not to have any will of her own, being of tender age.[21] The fact that the offended party is under 12 years old at the time of the commission of the crime is an essential element of the crime and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.[22] In statutory rape, violence or intimidation is not required, and the only subject of inquiry is whether carnal knowledge took place.[23] | |||||
|
2007-10-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| sexually abused one or two days prior to the examination. The Court held that when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings, sufficient basis exists to warrant a conclusion that the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has thereby been established.[30] | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) It is a hornbook doctrine that the testimony of a witness must be considered in its entirety and not by truncated portions or isolated passages thereof.[14] Evidently, the totality of Melissa's testimony positively and convincingly shows that there is no real inconsistency. | |||||
|
2007-01-24 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as basis for acquittal, such must refer to the significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused for the crime charged. An inconsistency which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the accused. Even if the offended party may have erred in some aspects of her testimony, the same does not necessarily impair her testimony nor corrode her credibility. x x x What is vital is that the act of copulation be proven under any of the conditions enumerated in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.[48] Despite said discrepancies, AAA was able to describe how each rape was done to her. During trial, the trial court was convinced that her answers to the questions, especially from the defense counsel, were "straightforward as to be expected from an honest and credible witness."[49] The trial court was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witness and thus, its appreciation of the private complainant's testimony deserves full probative weight. | |||||
|
2006-10-11 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Well-entrenched rule is that the findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA on appeal, are accorded with high respect, if not conclusive effect by this Court. The assessment by the trial court of the credibility of the witnesses and its calibration of the probative weight thereof are even conclusive on this Court, absent clear evidence that facts and circumstances of substance which if considered would alter or reverse the outcome of the case were ignored, misinterpreted or misconstrued.[37] | |||||
|
2006-02-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Granting that Ricardo erred in claiming that Tommy used an ice pick in stabbing him and Roque, it is a settled rule that witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall.[69] Even if the offended party may have erred in some aspects of his testimony, the same does not necessarily impair his testimony nor corrode his credibility.[70] Where a part of the testimony of a witness runs counter to the medical evidence submitted, it is within the sound discretion of the court to determine which portions of the testimony to reject as false and which to consider worthy of belief.[71] In the case of People v. Lucena,[72] we held that:Modern trend in jurisprudence favors more flexibility when the testimony of a witness may be partly believed and partly disbelieved depending on the corroborative evidence presented at the trial. Thus, where the challenged testimony is sufficiently corroborated in its material points, or where the mistakes arise from innocent lapses and not from an apparent desire to pervert the truth, the rule may be relaxed. It is a rule that is neither absolute nor mandatory and binding upon the court, which may accept or reject portions of the witness' testimony based on its inherent credibility or on the corroborative evidence in the case.[73] (Emphasis supplied). | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The legal aphorism is that the findings of the trial court, its calibration and assessment of the testimonial evidence of the witnesses, and its conclusion based on its findings, are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect.[39] This is so because the trial judge, having seen and heard the witnesses and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, is in a better position to determine their credibility.[40] An exception to this rule is when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[41] | |||||
|
2004-02-18 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The appellant's reliance on Campos' answers to questions propounded by his counsel on cross-examination to support a plea for acquittal is unacceptable. It is hornbook doctrine that a witness' testimony must be considered in its entirety and not by truncated portions or isolated passages thereof.[43] In People v. Ortega,[44] we held that it is sound policy that self-contradictions in testimonies should be reconciled, if possible; contradictory statements should be considered in light of explanations and attending circumstances and whether inconsistencies result from misconceptions of an innocent witness or are a result of mere willful and corrupt misrepresentation. This Court has held that even the most candid of witnesses commit mistakes and may even make confused and inconsistent statements. Evidently, the testimony of Campos on rebuttal, that the buy-bust operation against the appellant on September 11, 1997 was launched past 1:00 a.m. on to 2:00 a.m., is inconsistent with the testimonies of Aspe, Castro, Aquino and even Campos himself on the prosecution's evidence-in-chief that the buy-bust operation against the appellant on the said date took place at 5:30 a.m. But after calibrating the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution on its evidence-in-chief, vis-à-vis the testimony of Campos on rebuttal, we find the testimony of Campos on rebuttal unreliable and cannot prevail over his previous testimony and those of Aspe, Castro and Aquino on the evidence-in-chief of the prosecution. | |||||
|
2004-02-13 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The appellant's sole reliance on Jonalyn's answers to questions propounded by his counsel on cross-examination to support his plea for acquittal is unacceptable. It is hornbook doctrine that a witness' testimony must be considered in its entirety and not by truncated portions or isolated passages.[51] In People v. Ortega,[52] we held that it is sound policy that self-contradictions in testimonies should be reconciled, if possible, contradictory statements should be considered in light of explanations and attending circumstances and whether inconsistencies result from misconceptions of an innocent witness or willful and corrupt misrepresentation. This Court has held that even the most candid of witnesses commit mistakes and even make confused and inconsistent statements. This is especially true with young witnesses who could be overwhelmed by the atmosphere of the courtroom and by grueling and daunting cross-examinations by counsel of the accused. Error-free testimony cannot be expected most especially when a young, inexperienced and shy witness is recounting the details of a harrowing experience.[53] | |||||