Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. DOMINADOR HISTORILLO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR Nos. 150613-14 2004-06-29	PEOPLE v. MANUEL MANTIS QUISUMBING, J.
Appellant casts doubt on Mary Jane's credibility as a witness when she testified that she was raped on July 16, 1998 and on April 3, 1999, basing on the expert opinion of Dr. Salinas that the sexual intercourse which caused Mary Jane's pregnancy must have occurred in February 1999. But for the appellee, the OSG counters that the medical examination of the rape victim, as well as the medical certificate which ensues, is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element for conviction of the rapist. The resulting pregnancy is not an element of rape. In this case, appellant's contention is debunked by Mary Jane's testimony in open court. She testified that appellant raped her not only on the dates stated in the charge sheets, but also on several other occasions. She could not be faulted if she could not recall the precise dates of these incidents, considering her age and the trauma she suffered. Victims certainly do not cherish keeping in their memory an accurate account of the dates, number of times, and the manner in which they were sexually violated.[40]
	GR No. 131040 2001-10-05	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL FRAMIO SABAGALA QUISUMBING, J.
Rather than weaken her testimony, said inconsistencies tend to strengthen complainant's credibility as these prove that she was being spontaneous during her narration of the ordeal she suffered at the hands of appellant, an indication that she was not a rehearsed witness.[59] It is too much for us to expect a victim of a heinous crime, such as rape, to narrate her unfortunate experience free from any mistake or error.[60] A rape victim is not and cannot be expected to keep an accurate account of her traumatic experience.[61] A court cannot expect a rape victim to remember every ugly detail of the appalling outrage, especially so since she might in fact have been trying not to remember them.[62] Moreover, it must be remembered that the victim was only a 14-year old barrio lass, far from being a sophisticated woman who could be expected to weigh her every word with care so as to be free of inconsistency.
	GR Nos. 135231-33 2001-02-28	PEOPLE v. BLESIE VELASCO PER CURIAM
The fact that complainant could not accurately recall the weapon used to intimidate her on the night of 17 January 1997 does not destroy her credibility. This Court has held countless times that a rape victim cannot be expected to keep an accurate account of her traumatic experience.[45] It is not unnatural for inconsistencies to creep into the testimony of a rape victim, especially one who is of tender age as the witness, in narrating the details of a harrowing experience.[46] What is essential is that Raquel clearly recalled that her stepfather threatened her with a weapon on three (3) separate occasions to force her to have sex with him.
	GR Nos. 133448-53 2000-10-06	PEOPLE v. ROSELINDO CUTAMORA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A rape victim is not and cannot be expected to keep an accurate account of her traumatic experience. A court cannot expect a rape victim to remember every ugly detail of the appalling outrage especially so since she might in fact have been trying not to remember them. Rape victims do not cherish in their memories an accurate account of the dates, number of times and manner they were violated.[8] The precise time of the commission of the crime is not an essential element in the crime of rape[9] and therefore need not be accurately stated.[10]
	GR No. 131942 2000-10-05	PEOPLE v. CARLITO BAWANG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As the Court recently held in People v. Dominador Historillo,[55] reiterating the earlier ruling in People v. Garcia,[56] the seven circumstances added by R.A. No. 7659 to Article 335 are special qualifying circumstances, "the presence of any of which takes the case out of the purview of simple rape and effectively qualifies the same by increasing the penalty one degree higher. Qualified rape is thus punishable by the single indivisible penalty of death, which must be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance which may have attended the commission of the deed."[57]