This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-12-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| he rebuffed Fortunata when she borrowed P500.00 or P300.00 from him and when he removed the illegal electrical connection installed in the house of Fortunata, are preposterous and outrageous. In the first place, it is highly inconceivable that Jocelyn, a naïve girl, would concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts and undergo the expense, tribulation and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma of a public trial, unless she was in fact raped by accused-appellant.[16] Accused-appellant failed to prove his assertion and relied only on his own self-serving testimony. Moreover, mothers are so protective of their children that they would give up their lives and fortune to protect their children from any threat or peril to their lives or limb and shield them from embarassment, ridicule and any taint on their reputation. It is unthinkable that Fortunata will use Jocelyn as an instrument of malice, even for the purpose of avenging a personal slight, especially if it will subject Jocelyn to the embarrassment, trauma and stigma attendant to a rape trial unless accused-appellant indeed raped Jocelyn.[17] It must be pointed out that Fortunata first sought the advice of Rafael Ramos, the older brother of Efren and accused-appellant, before she assisted the private complainant in filing a complaint for rape against accused-appellant. Ranged against the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, accused-appellant's curt denial of the charge against him must necessarily fail. Case law has it that denial of the crime charged is but self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary | |||||