This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-07-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is time once more to stress that no woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. It is a settled jurisprudence that when a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. A woman would think twice before she concocts a story of rape unless she is motivated by a patent desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her.[60] When her testimony passes the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted on the basis thereof. This is because from the nature of the crime, the only evidence that can be offered to establish the guilt of the accused is the complainant's testimony.[61] | |||||
|
2009-02-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In reviewing rape cases, the Court has always been guided by three well-entrenched principles: (a) that an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime which usually involves two persons, the complainant's testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of evidence of the defense. In addition, it is well-nigh to stress over and over again, that no woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. It is settled jurisprudence that when a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. A woman would think twice before she concocts a story of rape, unless she is motivated by a patent desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her.[20] Accordingly, the primordial consideration in a determination concerning the crime of rape is the credibility of the complainant's testimony.[21] | |||||
|
2008-09-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing once again that no woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. It is settled jurisprudence that when a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. A woman would think twice before she concocts a story of rape, especially against her own father, unless she is motivated by a patent desire to seek justice for the wrong committed against her.[72] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Appellant focuses much on the question of credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution. This Court has consistently held, however, that such an issue is, by and large, within the proper competence of the trial court. The credibility of a witness is a matter best left to the trial court because of its peculiar position of being able to observe his deportment on the stand while testifying, an opportunity that is denied to an appellate court. Thus, there is good reason for the latter to almost always accord finality to the findings of the trial court unless, as so often said, "there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case."[7] | |||||
|
2003-07-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Needless to say, the credibility of witnesses is a matter best assigned to the trial court which had the first-hand opportunity to hear their testimonies and observe their demeanor, conduct, and attitude during cross-examination. Such matters cannot be gathered from a mere reading of the transcripts of stenographic notes. Hence, the trial court's findings carry great weight and substance.[12] | |||||