This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2008-07-23 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| It is a settled principle that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to so conclude, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimony. Unless, the trial judge plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, his assessment on credibility must be respected.[35] | |||||
|
2006-09-20 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| There are three guiding principles in the review of rape cases, to wit: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two persons being usually involved, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[40] Accordingly, in resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim's testimony.[41] If the testimony of the victim is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature, and the normal course of things, the accused may be convicted solely on the victim's testimony.[42] | |||||
|
2006-03-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| [12] People v. Serrano, G.R. No. 137480, February 28, 2001, 353 SCRA 161, 170. | |||||
|
2005-01-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is well-settled that denial is essentially the weakest form of defense and it can never overcome an affirmative testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.[11] Accused-appellant's bare assertion that private complainant was just "using" him to allow her to freely frolic with other men, particularly with a certain Renato Planas, begs the credulity of this Court. This is especially true in the light of our consistent pronouncement that "no decent and sensible woman will publicly admit being a rape victim and thus run the risk of public contempt - the dire consequence of a rape charge unless she is, in fact, a rape victim."[12] More in point is our pronouncement in People v. Canoy,[13] to wit:… It is unthinkable for a daughter to accuse her own father, to submit herself for examination of her most intimate parts, put her life to public scrutiny and expose herself, along with her family, to shame, pity or even ridicule not just for a simple offense but for a crime so serious that could mean the death sentence to the very person to whom she owes her life, had she really not have been aggrieved. Nor do we believe that the victim would fabricate a story of rape simply because she wanted to exact revenge against her father, appellant herein, for allegedly scolding and maltreating her.[14] | |||||
|
2005-01-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is well-settled that denial is essentially the weakest form of defense and it can never overcome an affirmative testimony particularly when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness.[11] Accused-appellant's bare assertion that private complainant was just "using" him to allow her to freely frolic with other men, particularly with a certain Renato Planas, begs the credulity of this Court. This is especially true in the light of our consistent pronouncement that "no decent and sensible woman will publicly admit being a rape victim and thus run the risk of public contempt - the dire consequence of a rape charge unless she is, in fact, a rape victim."[12] More in point is our pronouncement in People v. Canoy,[13] to wit:… It is unthinkable for a daughter to accuse her own father, to submit herself for examination of her most intimate parts, put her life to public scrutiny and expose herself, along with her family, to shame, pity or even ridicule not just for a simple offense but for a crime so serious that could mean the death sentence to the very person to whom she owes her life, had she really not have been aggrieved. Nor do we believe that the victim would fabricate a story of rape simply because she wanted to exact revenge against her father, appellant herein, for allegedly scolding and maltreating her.[14] | |||||
|
2004-05-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The following are the elements constitutive of rape with homicide: (1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on the occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, appellant killed the woman.[52] However, in rape committed by close kin, such as the victim's father, step-father, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed.[53] Moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation.[54] The fact that the victim's hymen is intact does not negate a finding that rape was committed as mere entry by the penis into the lips of the female genital organ, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, suffices for conviction of rape.[55] The strength and dilatability of the hymen are invariable; it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourse. Absence of hymenal lacerations does not disprove sexual abuse especially when the victim is of tender age.[56] | |||||
|
2003-10-16 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| That appellant could not defile his own seed and ravish her on three (3) different occasions in the presence of his family is a refutation which is both dubious and egotistic. Appellant's denial is unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, hence deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of a credible witness who testified on affirmative matters.[37] | |||||
|
2001-10-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Coming now to the second issue. In reviewing convictions for rape, we are guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove; (b) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two persons being usually involved, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[28] | |||||
|
2001-10-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We have repeatedly adhered to the oft-repeated rule that lust is no respecter of time and place, and that rape can be committed even inside a house where there are other occupants.[16] The presence of people in a certain place is no guarantee that rape will not and cannot be committed.[17] Thus, the fact that complainant's sister was in the same room where the incident took place is not sufficient to cast doubt on the truthfulness of complainant's testimony, especially in light of her clear and convincing narration of the incident. | |||||