This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-02-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The testimony of the offended party in crimes against chastity should not be received with precipitate credulity for the charge can easily be concocted.[34] Courts should be wary of giving undue credibility to a claim of rape, especially where the sole evidence comes from an alleged victim whose charge is not corroborated and whose conduct during and after the rape is open to conflicting interpretations.[35] While judges ought to be cognizant of the anguish and humiliation that a rape victim undergoes as she seeks justice, they should equally bear in mind that their responsibility is to render justice based on the law.[36] | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Second. We have held time and again that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim referring to minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair the victim's credibility.[31] To every question asked, AAA gave straightforward and forthright answers which were credible and worthy of belief.[32] The linchpin of her testimony is that appellants raped her. On this matter, she did not waver or contradict herself. What appellants make much of are trivial issues that cannot foreclose the fact that they had carnal knowledge of AAA.[33] Thus, whether she was raped in the ground floor or second floor of the house,[34] or whether October 9, 2000 was a Saturday or a Monday,[35] or whether Dionisio was in xxx City or xxx Province on October 9, 2000,[36] are trivial details. An ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded AAA since minor lapses are to be expected when a person is recounting the details of a horrifying experience. Hence, she cannot be expected to mechanically retain and then give an accurate account of every single lurid detail of her harrowing experience. Far from eroding her credibility, her lapses could instead constitute signs of veracity for they show that her testimony was neither rehearsed nor contrived.[37] | |||||
|
2003-10-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As can be seen from the foregoing, the prosecution and the defense have diametrically opposed factual versions of what transpired immediately preceding the killing. Our task is to determine which of them is the truth. In resolving such conflict, dealing as it does with the credibility of witnesses, the usual rule is for us to respect the findings of the trial court considering that it was in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial.[34] Nonetheless, this rule is circumscribed by well-established exceptions.[35] | |||||
|
2002-07-23 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| retraction of the edges of the hymen at 6 o'clock;" (b) that a "(t)est tube with a diameter of 3/4 inch entered easily the vagina;" (c) that there was "(e)rythema of the vulva;" (d) that it was possible that the laceration could have been caused by the organ of a person; and (e) that since said test tube easily entered her vagina, it could be possible that she had several sexual intercourse.[116] It is settled that "(t)he mere introduction of the male organ in the labia majora of the victim's genitalia consummates the crime;"[117] and that the medical evidence, notably the finding of healed lacerations on the victim's private parts, supports the theory that Cherry Grace had been a victim of rape.[118] In any event, the established facts and circumstances lead us to the ineluctable conclusion that Cherry Grace was raped, what with (a) her positive identification of the accused-appellant, declaration that he made her stand on the bangkito, pinned her against the wall, removed her shorts, and inserted his sex organ in her vagina; and (b) Dr. Leonido's findings of the presence of healed laceration in her vagina. At any rate, we are not persuaded by the accused-appellant's contention that Cherry Grace is not a credible witness. | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The testimony given by the witnesses for the prosecution and that of the defense are diametrically opposed to each other. In resolving such conflict, which involves the credibility of witnesses, the usual rule is for this Court to respect the findings of the trial court considering that it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial.[22] Nonetheless, this rule is circumscribed by well-established exceptions.[23] Thus, the factual findings of the trial court may be reversed if by the evidence or lack of it, it appears that the trial court erred.[24] | |||||