This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-08-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| All told, this Court has no reason to reverse the findings of the RTC finding the testimony of AAA and the other witnesses credible as it was in the position to hear the witnesses themselves and observe their behavior and manner of testifying. As this Court had held in previous cases, time and again, we have consistently held that when a woman, more so if a minor, states that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. For no woman, least of all a child, would weave a tale of sexual assaults to her person, open herself to examination of her private parts and later be subjected to public trial or ridicule if she was not, in truth, a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her.[28] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It is true that the prosecution's evidence did not establish the exact dates of the commission of the rapes for which the appellant stands accused. All that it could show is that the appellant raped the offended party in November 1998. Nonetheless, the date of the incident is not an essential element of the offense of rape and the proof need not correspond exactly to the allegation in the information as long as the offense was committed within the period of the statute of limitations and before the commencement of the action.[36] In the face of the positive identification made by the complainant of the appellant as her ravisher, appellant's defense simply crumbles. When the evidence convincingly connects the crime and culprit, the probative value of denial and alibi is negligible.[37] | |||||
|
2003-08-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Time and again, we have consistently held that when a woman, more so if a minor, states that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. For no woman, least of all a child, would weave a tale of sexual assaults to her person, open herself to examination of her private parts and later be subjected to public trial or ridicule if she was not, in truth, a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her.[26] Hence, we find no basis to depart from the well-settled rule that trial court's assessment of the credibility of complainant's testimony is entitled to great weight, absent any showing that some facts were overlooked which, if considered, would affect the outcome of the case.[27] | |||||
|
2003-07-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The presence of an old healed laceration on Desiree's hymen does not negate the commission of rape. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of the crime.[27] Neither does this render Desiree's testimony incredible. Even if the victim had an old healed laceration in her hymen, she would still feel pain if the appellant forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina. When a minor says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed.[28] For no woman would weave a tale of sexual assaults to her person, open herself to examination of her private parts and later be subjected to public trial or ridicule if she was not, in truth, a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her.[29] | |||||