Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FEDERICO CAMPANER

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR Nos. 137790-91 2001-04-16	PEOPLE v. JAIME CADAG JIMENEZ MENDOZA, J.
As to the other alleged inconsistencies in Joanna's testimony, we have already held that errorless testimonies cannot be expected from victims of sex crimes as they might, in fact, be trying to erase from their memory the details of their harrowing experience.[24] But as long as the testimony in the main coincides on material points, minor inconsistencies can affect neither the witnesses' credibility nor the veracity of their testimonies.[25] In Joanna's case, although she contradicted herself as to the place where accused-appellant slept, the point is that as both accused-appellant and her mother Nimfa testified, the entire family sleep in the sala.[26] Indeed, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is best performed by the trial judge who had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor during the trial. Thus, his findings on their credibility are given the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the trial judge overlooked circumstances of substance which might have affected the result of the case.[27] Substantial matters, in criminal cases, refer to facts which are constitutive of the crime charged.[28] In any event, Joanna was never confronted with her prior inconsistent statements and given a chance to explain the alleged contradictions as required by Rule 132, §13. Thus, accused-appellant should not now be allowed to raise this matter on appeal.[29] Accused-appellant says that Joanna's claim that he abused her in the sala not only once but also on several other occasions is highly improbable because his wife Nimfa and their other children also sleep in the sala. As we have observed, however, lust is no respecter of time and place. If rape can be committed in places where people congregate, even in the same room where other members of the family are sleeping,[30] there is less reason to believe that other people sleeping in the same room can serve as a deterrent for the commission of lascivious acts.
	GR No. 132065 2001-04-03	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO DEL MUNDO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Accordingly, accused-appellant should be sentenced to the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua, not because of technicality but because of his basic right to due process as guaranteed by the Constitution.[23] Simple rape is punishable only with reclusion perpetua,[24] which is imposed regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance.[25] In addition, though several rapes were proven during trial, only one conviction can prosper since only one rape is charged in the information;[26] namely, the one committed on May 27, 1996.
	GR Nos. 137762-65 2001-03-27	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BARES Y LONGASA MENDOZA, J.
We have time and again ruled that it is not unnatural for a rape victim, especially one who is of tender age, to make inconsistent statements. But so long as the testimony is consistent on material points, slightly conflicting statements will not undermine the witness' credibility nor the veracity of her testimony. They in fact tend to buttress, rather than impair, her credibility as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[30]
	GR No. 136594 2001-03-13	PEOPLE v. JOEL CANIEZO Y SALAZAR MENDOZA, J.
In any event, accused-appellant should have confronted Sheila with her prior inconsistent statements and given her a chance to explain the alleged inconsistencies as required by Rule 132, §13. As accused-appellant did not do so in this case, he should not now be allowed to raise this matter on appeal.[31]
	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.