This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2003-11-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In a litany of cases, this Court has ruled that the testimonies of child- victims of rape are to be given full weight and credence.[29] Reason and experience dictate that a girl of tender years, who barely understands sex and sexuality, is unlikely to impute to any man a crime so serious as rape, if what she claims is not true.[30] Her candid narration of how she was raped bears the earmarks of credibility, especially if no ill will -- as in this case -- motivates her to testify falsely against the accused.[31] It is well-settled that when a woman, more so when she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is required to prove the ravishment.[32] The accused may thus be convicted solely on her testimony -- provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[33] | |||||
|
2000-11-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The alleged inconsistencies mentioned by accused-appellant easily dissipate to naught when the testimony of Jenalyn is considered and calibrated in its entirety, which it should be, and not by truncated portions or isolated passages.[42] Jenalyn's youth and inexperience, let alone her lack of sophistication, must be taken in account in understanding her testimony. | |||||
|
2000-07-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| She remained consistent in her sorry tale of ravishment at the hands of the appellant, on cross-examination. A candid narration by a victim of forced coitus bears the earmarks of credibility, particularly where no motive has been attributed to her that would make her testify falsely against the accused.[46] More so, where the medical examination corroborates her account of outrage. In this case, Dr. Dario Gajardo of the PNP Crime Laboratory, who conducted the medico-legal examination of Gina Abacan testified on his findings that he found deep and fresh lacerations on the hymen and vaginal opening of the victim,[47] indicating recent sexual contact at the time of the examination.[48] A young woman's revelation that she has been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination of her private parts and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give details of the assault on her chastity and womanhood, cannot be easily dismissed as a mere concoction.[49] On the third assignment of error, appellant faults the trial court with failing to appreciate his alibi. | |||||