This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-04-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the crime of rape, the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender is a special qualifying circumstance and raises the penalty to the supreme penalty of death. It is essential that this circumstance must be alleged in the criminal complaint or information and must be proved conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself; otherwise, the crime shall be considered simple rape warranting the imposition of the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua.[24] | |||||
|
2003-11-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It is settled 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. Indeed, if an accused had nothing to do with the crime, it is against the natural order of events and human nature and against the presumption of good faith that the prosecution witness would falsely testify against the former.[7] | |||||
|
2003-11-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Finally, we note from the records that the victim, Grace Nodalo, wept during her direct examination[9] and rebuttal testimony.[10] The victim's act of weeping while testifying only bolsters the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience.[11] It is a matter of judicial cognizance that the spontaneous crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence that speaks well of her credibility.[12] | |||||
|
2003-09-30 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| With respect to the civil aspect of the case, this Court reduces the trial court's award of civil indemnity to P50,000.00 in accordance with the latest jurisprudence on rape which is not effectively qualified by any circumstance for which the imposition of the death penalty is authorized by the present amended law.[38] | |||||
|
2003-07-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We find this perceived inconsistency too trivial to affect the credibility of Analyn. In reconstructing the events that led to the incident in question, courts should not expect the narration or presentation to be strictly chronological. Factors such as memory, length of time, intelligence, articulateness, and emotional condition all affect a witness' narration of events. As long as the witness was found to be credible by the trial court, especially after undergoing a rigid cross-examination, any apparent inconsistency may be overlooked. This is especially true if the lapses concern trivial matters.[14] Regardless of the order by which the items of clothing were removed, the unassailable fact still remains that appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim through intimidation, against her will and without her consent. It could not, therefore, be said that the trial court overlooked facts which if considered would materially affect the outcome of this case. In fine, the trial court correctly gave credence to Analyn's testimony and the prosecution evidence as a whole. | |||||