This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-10-19 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is also a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimony solemnly taken before courts of justice simply because the witness who gave it later changed his mind for one reason or another. This will make a mockery of solemn trials and put the investigation of crimes at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses.[54] A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration.[55] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Time and again we have ruled that qualifying circumstances that increase the imposable penalty on an accused must be specifically alleged in the Information and duly proved during trial.[22] Article 266-B (1) of the Revised Penal Code before the abolition of the death penalty provided, | |||||
|
2003-10-01 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it is noted that since the crimes were committed on October 31, 1997 and November 1, 1997, the applicable law is R.A. 8353, otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997"[10] which took effect on October 22, 1997.[11] Under this law, rape has been reclassified from a private crime or crime against chastity into a crime against persons. Consequently, the prosecution for the crime of rape was removed from the ambit of Chapter Five, Title Eleven of the Revised Penal Code and Section 5, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which required that in crimes against chastity, the complaint must be filed by the offended party, or her parents, godparents or guardian, as the case may be under the law. Thus, effective October 22, 1997, R.A. No. 8353, it is required that prosecution for the crime of rape, as in any other public crimes, is commenced in court by the filing of an information by the public prosecutor and no longer by a mere complaint filed by the offended party, parents, godparents or guardian. | |||||
|
2003-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In these cases, the trial court gave full credence to complainant's testimony. We find on record that in three of the four cases, i.e. Criminal Cases Nos. 2000-0125-D, 2000-0126-D, and 2000-0128-D, private complainant testified as to the sexual abuses she suffered at appellant's hands in a clear, detailed, and categorical manner. Private complainant reveals in her testimony how her chastity was defiled by appellant. Her willingness to face police investigation and undergo a humiliating public trial speaks eloquently to the truth of her complaints. As previously held by this Court, a rape victim's testimony against her father is entitled to much credibility since respect for elders is deeply ingrained in Filipino children and is even recognized by law.[14] Thus, we agree with the trial court that the private complainant's testimony alone, having satisfied the test of credibility and sincerity, is sufficient basis for appellant's prosecution and conviction[15] in Criminal Cases Nos. 2000-0125-D, 2000-0126-D, and 2000-0128-D. A person accused of a crime may be convicted, not on the number of witnesses against him, but on the credibility of even one witness who is able to prove his guilt beyond a shadow of doubt.[16] | |||||