This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2009-06-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This Court has held that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself be being subjected to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[44] It is highly improbable for an innocent girl, who is very naive to the ways of this world, to fabricate a charge so humiliating not only to herself but to her family. Moreover, it is doctrinally settled that testimonies of rape victims who are of tender age are credible.[45] The revelation of a innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full credit, as the willingness of the complainant to face police investigation and to undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial is eloquent testimony of the truth of her complaint.[46] | |||||
|
2008-04-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's allegation that the complaints for rapes were prompted by the victim's hatred of the appellant for abandoning her is bereft of any basis. The victim even during her tender years had been looking for her father. She was, in fact, delighted when she saw her father for the first time in May of 1991. If AAA at all nurtured ill-will against her father, it was because he, instead of acting as protector of his daughter, defiled her. Assuming arguendo that AAA harbored hatred against appellant, it would be unlikely for a 13-year old girl to fabricate such story. This Court has held that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her.[53] It is highly improbable for an innocent girl, who is very naïve to the things of this world, to fabricate a charge so humiliating not only to herself but to her family. Moreover, it is doctrinally settled that testimonies of rape victims who are of tender age are credible.[54] The revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full credit, as the willingness of the complainant to face police investigation and to undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial is eloquent testimony of the truth of her complaint. [55] | |||||
|
2003-08-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We likewise reject the contention of the appellant that it was impossible for him to have committed the crime because, as the victim herself testified, she was always accompanied by members of her family. It is well-nigh impossible for her to be accompanied by some other person every single second of her life. Besides, it is a truism that lust has no regard for time and place.[23] Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people there, nor the high risk of being caught has been held sufficient and effective obstacles to deter the commission of rape.[24] Appellant's mere denial is insufficient proof that no rape was committed, especially in the light of the victim's straightforward testimony which was consistent on material points. We have held that mere denial, which is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated by clear and convincing evidence, is self-serving and has no weight in law.[25] | |||||
|
2002-02-13 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| All told, the defense of denial and alibi interposed by accused-appellant cannot prevail over his positive identification[51] by the two complainants. It is a lame excuse on the part of accused-appellant that he was at the market selling fish during the subject dates when the rapes happened. Not even the corroborating testimonies of the other defense witnesses could help his cause. A bare denial, if unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, is self-serving and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the positive declarations of the complainants.[52] For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime.[53] Accused-appellant failed to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at home at the subject dates when the rapes were allegedly committed. We find it incredible for defense witnesses, Corazon Bandong and Perla Ursua, to vividly remember the dates when they saw him in the market, i.e., January 14, February 16 and 23, 1998, to show that accused-appellant could not have committed the rapes. | |||||
|
2001-09-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We have many times ruled that when the question of credence as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and defense should be believed the trial court's findings are generally accorded with respect because it has seen the way the witness testified and observed them while testifying.[36] Unless shown that it has overlooked some facts which would affect the result of the case, the trial court's factual findings will not be disturbed by the appellate court.[37] The trial court arrived at a judgment of conviction by relying on the testimony of complainant. The trial court held: "Prudently, judiciously, objectively and meticulously evaluating, analyzing, calibrating and going through the finer points of the evidence adduced by a contending parties on the charge of rape by complainant Vilma Concel viz-a-viz the audacious admission by accused Hilgem Nerio of voluntary sexual tryst with complainant anchored on "sweetheart defense," we find in favor of the prosecution. There is a total dearth of raison d' etre for us to be skeptical of the credibility of private complainant who is a venerable grandmother of 70, a retired public school teacher, a purok president and a recipient of the plum as one of the 1994 Outstanding Mothers of Negros Occidental (province)."[38] | |||||
|
2001-02-06 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, respondent Alorasan contends that the petition has become moot because petitioners had been ousted from the premises by a writ of execution[10] ssued by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasay City in Civil Case No. 146-91, for unlawful detainer. The building was demolished and the premises turned over to respondent Alorasan. | |||||