This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-11-19 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The discrepancy in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses as to the place where AAA was eventually found were mere trivial matters since they pertain to events that occurred after the fact of rape. "[W]hat is decisive in a prosecution for rape is whether the commission of the crime has been sufficiently proven. Inconsistencies and discrepancies on minor details that are irrelevant to the constitutive elements of the crime cannot be considered grounds for acquittal."[36] Moreover, minor inconsistencies actually tend to buttress, rather than weaken, a witness' credibility, as they indicate that the testimony was not contrived.[37] | |||||
|
2004-01-14 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| On 27 September 2001, Elgie, after consulting with her mother, executed and filed with this Court an affidavit of desistance. An affidavit of desistance is not looked upon with favor on appeal following a conviction, let alone as being the sole consideration for the reversal of that conviction. There must be other circumstances which, when coupled with retraction or desistance, create doubts on the veracity of the testimony given by witnesses during the trial.[19] The records do not here cast such doubts. A rape victim, who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains consistent, is a credible witness.[20] The victim in this case has remained steadfast in her testimony despite a rigid cross-examination made by the defense. The spontaneous emotional breakdowns suffered by the victim occasioned by the forced recollection of the sexual violation she has experienced from the hands of appellant somehow would add to her credibility.[21] | |||||
|
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] | |||||