This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
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] | |||||
|
2002-05-09 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "x x x. One final word on accused Baroy, this Court has observed hundred, nay even thousands of persons suspected or accused of having committed crimes but never has anyone made an imprint of deviousness as said accused and if for any reason he is able to escape the claws of death for his pernicious acts, then the court recommends that he be not given a day of freedom more than what is necessary to make him pay for his crime."[50] WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED; the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the penalty of death is reduced to reclusion perpetua for each count of rape. The civil awards are also AFFIRMED, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.[51] No pronouncement as to costs. | |||||
|
2001-12-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Thus, accused-appellant has not shown any compelling reason for this Court to depart from the trial court's finding that Maria was telling the truth when she accused accused-appellant of raping her. The inconsistencies and improbabilities in her testimony relate to minor, trivial, and inconsequential matters which do not alter the essential fact in the crime of rape, which is carnal knowledge through force or intimidation.[32] In fact, they may even be considered a badge of truthfulness which erases any suspicion that Maria is a rehearsed witness.[33] On the other hand, Maria's claim that she had been raped is corroborated by the medical finding that she suffered hymenal lacerations at the 3, 6, and 9 o' clock positions.[34] | |||||
|
2001-11-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Marina admitted burning the duster, panty, bed sheet, and blanket. She explained that she did not wish to remember the rape that occurred, so she had everything burned. Accused-appellants maintained that the complainants wanted to destroy evidence that would indicate a fabricated charge. However, the conduct of a rape victim after the occurrence of the crime varies from person to person. There is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling experience.[35] Thus, Marina's urgent wish to remove all that would remind her of the horrible deed done to her by three men in succession in one night may be considered a normal reaction. | |||||
|
2001-10-03 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| We have long since held that the lone testimony of the offended party in a rape case, if free from serious and material contradictions, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[14] For, in truth, no woman, especially one of tender age, would contrive a charge of sexual abuse and undergo the degradation and humiliation of a public trial, where she would be forced to reveal the lurid details of how she was violated, if she had not actually been raped or been moved by a desire to obtain justice and vindicate her honor. This particularly holds true where, as in these cases, the accusation is directed by the complainant against her own father. Considering the Filipino values, so deeply ingrained in our culture, of respect and reverence for our elders, it is unthinkable for a daughter to invent a sordid tale of incest if such were not true.[15] | |||||
|
2001-09-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed on accused-appellant with regard to the sexual assault committed on April 30, 1993, as alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 8386, considering that R.A. No. 7659 which restored the death penalty took effect only on December 31, 1993.[37] Nevertheless, while accused-appellant's guilt was likewise proved beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 8387, the Court finds the imposition of the death penalty against him unwarranted. The pertinent provisions of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11, R.A. No. 7659 provides that:ART. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: | |||||