This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-05-04 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness with regard to minor or collateral matters do not diminish the value of the testimony in terms of truthfulness or weight. The gravamen of the felony is the carnal knowledge by the appellant of the private complainant under any of the circumstances provided in Article 335[36] of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Where the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified to.[37] In fact, these inconsistencies bolster the credibility of the witness's testimony as it erases the suspicion of the witness having been coached or rehearsed.[38] It is when the testimony appears totally flawless that a court might have some misgiving as to its veracity. This is especially true in rape cases where victims are not expected to have a total recall of the incident.[39] | |||||
|
2008-12-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the present case, it is noteworthy that on those two occasions that the appellant raped AAA, he threatened to kill her if ever she would tell anyone about what happened. AAA was only 11 years old at the time she was raped by the appellant. Obviously, such threat could easily intimidate her. Young as she was, such threat instilled tremendous fear in her mind. Appellant is her father and his presence in their household was more than enough to keep her silent. Indeed, when the appellant was already in jail for raping AAA's five-year-old cousin, AAA, knowing that her father could no longer harm her, took courage to tell her cousin, DDD, what the appellant did to her. She also reported to the authorities the bestial acts committed against her by the appellant. Further, the reaction of AAA's mother in not believing her stories of rape at once was neither strange nor unheard of. It is not a source of wonder that, to protect the husband, a wife might even turn against her own daughter.[47] | |||||
|
2007-03-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| These inconsistencies refer to minor and collateral matters. Inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness with regard to minor or collateral matters do not diminish the value of his testimony in terms of truthfulness or weight. The gravamen of the felony is the carnal knowledge by the appellant of the private complainant under any of the circumstances provided in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Where the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified to.[45] In fact, these inconsistencies bolster the credibility of the witness's testimony as they erase the suspicion of the witness having been coached or rehearsed.[46] It is when the testimony appears totally flawless that a court might have some misgiving on its veracity. This is especially true in rape cases where victims are not expected to have a total recall of the incident.[47] | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| This Court has held often enough that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to full faith and credit since it had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying on the stand. Such findings will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would otherwise affect the result of the case.[14] An evaluation of the records show that no such error can be attributed to the lower court in this case. At any rate, the inconsistencies appear to be minor or inconsequential which, rather than weaken the witness's credibility, strengthen it as they erase the suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[15] | |||||
|
2002-03-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, the version of accused-appellant based on denial and alibi cannot be given weight in the face of his positive identification by Arlene as the author of the crime.[31] For alibi to prosper, not only must accused-appellant prove that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the appointed time.[32] In this case, accused-appellant claimed that he was at a wake on the midnight of July 26, 1997. However, it was established that the wake was also in Rawis, within the same barangay, at a place just 250 meters away from his mother's house where his family stayed. Thus, even assuming that he was indeed at the wake that night, it would not be impossible for accused-appellant to have gone home to commit the crime. | |||||