This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2003-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A: Yes, sir. PROS. MANAOIS: May we place on record that the witness is now shedding tears.[18] (Emphasis supplied.) From her testimony, it is clear that what was meant by "abused" is the pattern of unconsented sexual abuses against the victim by appellant. It is established jurisprudence that testimony must be considered and calibrated in its entirety inclusive and not by truncated or isolated passages thereof.[19] Due consideration must be accorded to all the questions propounded to the witness and her answers thereto. The whole impression or effect of what had been said or done must be considered and not individual words or phrases alone. Moreover, rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail.[20] Just as well-settled is the rule that what is important is the victim's testimony that the accused sexually abused her.[21] Significantly, the victim shed tears while testifying on her third complaint against her own father.[22] The crying of a victim on the witness stand is evidence of the truth of the rape charges, for the display of such emotions indicates the pain that she feels as she recounts the details of her sordid experience.[23] Given the proof of two prior abuses against her, there is reason to hold in this instance that when a girl says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed,[24] for a daughter especially of tender age would not accuse her own father of such a heinous crime as rape had she really not been aggrieved.[25] | |||||
|
2001-02-07 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Verily, the trial court gave credence to the victims' testimony. We find no reason to reverse this finding. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial court deserve utmost respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless it has overlooked certain facts or circumstances of substance and value, which if considered would change the result of the case.[18] The trial court, unlike reviewing tribunals, had a firsthand opportunity to observe the demeanor and the conduct of the witnesses and could thus better assess their capacity to speak the truth.[19] | |||||
|
2001-02-07 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Aside from affirming appellant's conviction, the Court also sentences him to pay indemnity ex delicto of P50,000 for each of the three rape cases, consistent with existing jurisprudence.[28] We likewise delete the award of exemplary damages, as no aggravating circumstances were proven.[29] | |||||
|
2001-02-06 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| ". . . No young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit she had been raped unless that was the truth. Even in these modern times, this principle still holds true."[11] Accused was not able to present any proof to show that he and the complainant were indeed lovers, that he had courted her and that she had accepted him. Other than his self-serving statement, "no documentary evidence of any sort, like a letter or a photograph or any piece of memento, was presented to confirm a romantic lia[i]son between accused-appellant and the complainant."[12] It is clear that the same is but a mere concoction by appellant in order to exculpate himself from any criminal liability.[13] Besides, even if indeed accused and complainant were sweethearts, this fact does not necessarily negate rape. "A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee and, worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust."[14] | |||||
|
2000-07-24 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| disregard Adelina's testimony on this basis will result in injustice. Hae nugae seria ducent in mala. Consideration of these trifles will lead to serious mischief.[29] For a discrepancy in testimony to acquit, such must refer to significant facts crucial to the guilt or innocence of accused-appellants. Inconsistencies irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds to reverse the conviction.[30] True, Adelina waited six (6) months before she reported the crime to the police. However, this will not discredit her. It is not uncommon for a girl of tender age to be intimidated into silence by the mildest threat on her life.[31] | |||||
|
2000-06-08 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The evidence having established the commission of rape, we find the imposition of reclusion perpetua to be in accord with Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.[31] Though it has been proven that the rape was committed with the use of a deadly weapon, a bolo, the penalty of death cannot be imposed because at the time it was committed, the death penalty has been proscribed by the 1987 Constitution.[32] | |||||