This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2004-06-29 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It is immaterial and irrelevant whether Janice's testimony was corroborated or not. Corroborative testimony frequently unavailable in rape cases, is not essential to warrant a conviction for the crime.[46] An accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the victim's testimony.[47] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Established is the rule that the testimonies of rape victims, especially child victims, are given full weight and credit.[57] It bears emphasis that the victim was barely thirteen when she was raped. In a litany of cases, this Court has applied the well-settled rule that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed, for as long as her testimony meets the test of credibility.[58] No young girl, indeed, would concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime as rape at the hands of a close kin, undergo medical examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than an earnest desire to seek justice.[59] This holds true especially where the complainant is a minor, whose testimony deserves full credence.[60] Certainly, Rizalyn's testimony is entitled to great weight especially when she accuses a close relative of having ravished her. For there can be ascribed no greater motivation for a woman abused by her own kin than that innate yearning of the human spirit to declare the truth to obtain justice.[61] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| But appellant discredits Ermita's sworn statement because she retracted. It bears emphasis that mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony if credible, as in this case. We look with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court. The rationale for the rule is obvious: Affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that it will later be repudiated. [17] Thus, the trial court correctly disregarded Ermita's affidavit of desistance. Obviously, she was influenced by appellant to execute it. Moreover, if it were true that an unidentified person killed their son, why did appellant fail to report the matter to the proper authorities? There can be no other conclusion, therefore, than that Ermita's affidavit of retraction is an afterthought, intended to exculpate appellant from criminal liability. | |||||
|
2004-03-31 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| x x x."[5] In a prosecution for rape, the victim's credibility becomes the single most important issue, and when her testimony satisfies the test of credibility, an accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.[6] | |||||
|
2004-03-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| exact time or date of the commission of rape is not an element of the crime. What is decisive is that the prosecution has sufficiently proved that the appellant committed the crime charged.[19] Moreover, a close scrutiny of the records shows that the supposed flaws bear on relatively minor points and, even taken as a whole, they fail to debunk the gravamen of the accusation that appellant had sexually ravished the victim six (6) times by using force or intimidation. Neither are we persuaded by appellant's claim that his work in the Philippine Refining Company at Paco, Manila required him to be there early in the morning until late evening, and as such, it was physically impossible for him to have been at home every time the alleged | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| What time did you sleep in that evening of December 8? A I already slept in the early morning because I could not sleep during that time. Q Why could you not sleep? A Because I was thinking of what happened and also thinking of the threats that he made. Q You did not think of reporting the incident to the police authority or to your sister while lying on bed? A I also thought of that, but I also thought of the threats he made against me and thought of what he did to me and of what my brothers will do to him. x x x Q Madam witness, you mentioned a while ago that you woke up around 8:00 in the morning and it was one hour that transpired before the incident on December 9, 1996. My question is, why did you (not) flee from the house or go away considering that it was daytime and not night time? A Because during that time, I was very confused, I did not know what to do first, either go away or report the incident to the Barangay. Q Now, you reported the incident to the police, what date? A On December 26, 1996."[27] (Underscoring ours) Clearly, Jovita was overwhelmed with fear before, during and immediately after the two traumatic events. She was extremely afraid that appellant might kill her and her sister Anita should she report the incidents to the authorities. We hold that her delay in divulging what transpired is reasonably justified and, therefore, cannot by itself diminish the probative value of her testimony.[28] | |||||